BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Motion made, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be considered on Tuesday 5 February.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 5 February (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Private Sector Job Creation

Jessica Lee: What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage private sector job creation.

Brooks Newmark: What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage private sector job creation.

George Osborne: More than 1 million private sector jobs have been created since the first quarter of 2010 and employment is at a record high. We are supporting more job creation by further reducing the rate of corporation tax to 21%, and since 1 January we have been helping businesses large and small to invest, with a temporary tenfold increase in the annual investment allowance. We can afford these tax reductions in part because we are taking tough action on tax evasion. I can confirm to the House that last night Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs received £340 million from the Swiss Government, a first instalment of the deal we have struck, and the first time in our history that money due in taxes has flowed from Switzerland to the UK, instead of the other way round.

Jessica Lee: I warmly welcome the announcement that my right hon. Friend has just made. I am sure the fact that a fairer share of tax is being paid will also be warmly welcomed by my constituents in Erewash. Does my right hon. Friend agree that another important aspect of private sector job creation is the role of apprenticeships? Companies such as Derwent Analytics and TecQuipment in my constituency have an important role and are enriching young people with opportunity and skills for the future.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right, and I am glad she welcomes the deal we have struck with Switzerland—a deal, by the way, rejected by the previous Government. Apprenticeships are vital in helping to create that skilled work force. More than 1 million people have started apprenticeships since 2010 and in her constituency alone there has been a 42% increase. I am delighted that successful businesses in her constituency are helping to train the work force of tomorrow.

Brooks Newmark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s generous tax incentives provided by the seed enterprise investment scheme not only stimulate investment by angel investors for start-ups, but help create jobs in the private sector?

George Osborne: I do agree. The seed enterprise investment scheme has succeeded in getting money into start-up businesses and we currently have the fastest rate of business creation in our history. I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done, going around the country promoting the scheme.

John Healey: If everything is going so well in the jobs market, why is the number of people on the dole long term the highest for 15 years? Why has the number of young people in Rotherham out of work for more than 12 months tripled over the past year? When is the Chancellor finally going to act to give people real help with jobs?

George Osborne: Of course, we are clearing up the mess that Labour left behind. As we do that, the private sector has created over a million new jobs, unemployment has been falling, employment is at a record high, and female employment is at a record high. I would have thought the right hon. Gentleman should celebrate that, rather than talking it down.

Alison McGovern: Private sector job creation is not working for young people. In January 2011 I asked the Government how many young people they would be paying out the dole to by the end of this Parliament. They said 279,000. In December 2012 they had to up that figure to 310,000, an extra 31,000 young people who they predict will be on the dole by the end of this Parliament. Who does the Chancellor blame for that planned increase in welfare spending—himself or the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?

George Osborne: The claimant count has fallen on the most recent measure, which was published last week. As I said, 1 million jobs have been created in the private sector. We are also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) reminded us, creating the apprenticeships to give these young people the skills
	they need, which the previous Government were not providing, to compete in the modern economy. I would ask the hon. Lady to get behind the education and welfare reforms needed so that people have the right incentives to work and the right skills to get a good job in future.

Andrew Tyrie: The recent cancellation of the rise in fuel duty in the autumn statement was very welcome news for all our constituents, and it will help with jobs. Our constituents now need greater certainty about future rises, so will the Chancellor accept the Treasury Committee’s recommendation, published today, that he should use the Budget to set out a clear medium-term strategy for fuel duty?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right to remind us that fuel duty is 10p per litre lower than it would have been if we had stuck with Labour’s Budget plans. We have also, as a medium-term measure, abolished the fuel duty escalator that the previous Government put in place. He mentions the Treasury Committee’s report. I hope that, as Chair of the Committee, he will welcome the fact that we have got the money in from Switzerland, because one of the issues that the report raised was whether that money would be forthcoming, and the fact that it came last night was very welcome.

Christopher Leslie: While the headline rate of unemployment is falling, is not rising long-term unemployment bad for society, as my hon. Friends have been saying, but bad for the Exchequer too, because it is one of reason why so far this year the deficit has been going up, with £7 billion more borrowing than in the same period last year? Can the Chancellor at least bring himself to admit that?

George Osborne: Unemployment rocketed because of the disastrous economic policies of the Labour party, and the deficit rocketed too. The good news is that 1 million jobs have been created and that the deficit has come down by 25%. Perhaps one day we will get an economic policy from the Labour party and we can make comparisons with what it would do in office. Until then, the hon. Gentleman should get behind the measures to clear up the mess that he left behind.

Child Benefit

Ian Lavery: How many households no longer eligible for child benefit have opted not to receive it.

Barry Gardiner: How many households no longer eligible for child benefit have opted not to receive it.

Sajid Javid: The Government estimate that in the 2013-14 tax year over 1 million out of 8 million families are affected by the new charge. As of 24 January, over 340,000 recipients have opted not to receive the payment. The charge will raise over £1.7 billion each year to tackle the deficit.

Ian Lavery: The Government pride themselves on their fairness. Can the Minister explain to this House what is fair about a one-earner family making up to
	£50,000 having their child benefit cut while a two-earner family making up to £100,000—twice the amount—is able to retain their child benefit?

Sajid Javid: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a man of principle, and I have respect for him, particularly since he refused to work for the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman); I do not blame him. I note that on his website he says that he has
	“a strong commitment to supporting the…less well off in society.”
	He is absolutely right and I agree with him, so perhaps he can explain why he is against a measure that is targeted at the 15% of people who are the highest earners in society. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Question Time must be conducted in an orderly way. It is not for a Minister to suggest that a Member should start getting up and answering questions. It is Ministers who answer questions, and that is the end of it.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues in the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions the effect of the combined changes that those Departments and the Treasury have made, which mean that a young child in my constituency—a British child whose mother has leave to remain and work in the UK but who is estranged from their British father as a result of his domestic violence—will now not be able to receive child benefit for at least 10 years?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman raises a very specific issue. I think he will understand that I have not looked at that particular concern of his constituent, but I will be happy to look at it in more detail if he provides me with more information.

Harriett Baldwin: Can the Minister explain why, at a time when we are having to make such difficult decisions on public spending, it is fair to argue, as Labour does, that we should pay child benefit to millionaires?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. In the 13 years of the previous Government, the welfare budget went up by 62% in real terms; it was out of control. If we are going to deal with the problem that they left behind, we have to make sure that everyone makes a contribution.

Long-term Youth Unemployment

Iain Wright: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the Government’s fiscal policies on the level of long-term youth unemployment.

Greg Clark: Despite difficult economic circumstances, more people in the United Kingdom are in work than ever before in our history. Unemployment, youth unemployment and long-term unemployment are now falling. Through initiatives such as our city deals programme we will work with local communities to respond to particular local challenges.

Iain Wright: Back in the real world, long-term youth unemployment in Hartlepool has risen by 86% since this Government took office. How much of that increase can be attributed to the Government’s economic policies and which of those policies will the Minister now change to help the jobless youth in my constituency?

Greg Clark: I know that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Government who left the mess that we are clearing up, but I would have thought—[Interruption.] I take an interest in Teesside, as he knows. In his article for the Hartlepool Mail, he said:
	“The town’s economy has the makings of a modern, innovative and highly skilled manufacturing”
	town. The hon. Gentleman should get behind his town and support the city deal for Teesside that his colleagues are campaigning for.

Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the combination of rising private sector employment in this country and the number of measures that we are taking, including the largest apprenticeship scheme for almost 50 years, is one reason why our youth unemployment is at a much lower level than that in large parts of Europe? It is now past 60% in Spain.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right. It is important that we make sure that our young people have the skills available, and the expansion of the apprenticeship programme is a key feature of that. It is important to send the right message to young people, which is that there is a 90% chance that a young person who joins the jobseeker’s allowance scheme will have a job within a year, and a 60% chance that they will have a job within three months. It is very important that that message gets out and that young people should not be demoralised by the Labour party.

Gregory Campbell: In parts of the United Kingdom that are highly dependent on the public sector, such as Northern Ireland, does the Minister agree that we need to maximise the private sector to ensure that the hard core of young people who are unemployed get into skills and training programmes so that when jobs become available they are best placed to get them?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. What he says for Northern Ireland applies to the rest of the country as well, and that is what we are pursuing with our policies.

Philip Hollobone: One of the best ways to tackle youth unemployment is to encourage the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises. In that regard, may I share with the Minister the good news that Northamptonshire has recently been declared the most enterprising county in Britain, and that in Kettering in the third quarter of last year there were 154 new company formations, a record for the borough?

Greg Clark: I am very pleased to hear that from my hon. Friend, who has to count as one of the House’s most enterprising Members. He will know that Northampton came out very well of the recent cities survey with regard
	to its record of growth, and it is very important that we support that by getting more jobs and more people into work there.

Helen Goodman: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), the Minister made it absolutely clear that he is completely unaware of the fact that the cuts in the north-east total £4 billion, greater than those in Spain. Is it any wonder that youth unemployment is third only to Spain and Greece?

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady should reflect on the fact that the fall in unemployment in the north-east of nearly 25% is greater than that in any region in the country. She should be celebrating the turnaround in the north-eastern economy to which she and I have been aspiring for many years.

Andrea Leadsom: To go with the enterprise taking place in Northamptonshire, may I urge colleagues throughout the House to consider having an apprentice in their own office? I have had apprentices for two years now, both of whom were school leavers from Northamptonshire schools. They do a brilliant job and there are all sorts of facilities available to support that.

Greg Clark: If the apprentices that work in my hon. Friend’s office contribute to her own productivity and innovation in policy production, she is a standing example of the success of the scheme.

Cost of Living

Henry Smith: What steps he is taking to help people with the cost of living.

Marcus Jones: What steps he is taking to help people with the cost of living.

Danny Alexander: The Government continue to take steps to support households. The personal allowance will be increased to £9,440 in April 2013 to support hard-working individuals. The cash increase in that year is the largest ever. The 3p fuel duty increase planned for January 2013 has been cancelled, as a result of which fuel duty will have been frozen for two and a half years.

Henry Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and warmly welcome the fact that more than 1,700 people in my constituency have been taken out of paying income tax altogether by the raising of the threshold, and that more than 42,000 people in my constituency have had their income tax reduced as a result. May I urge him to be bold and go further?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. We are increasing the tax allowance towards the bold and ambitious goal of £10,000, which Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have joined together in coalition to deliver. We will certainly be bold and ambitious, and I will take his comments as a Budget submission.

Marcus Jones: For the third year running, the Government have provided additional funds to councils to allow them to freeze council tax, which doubled under the Labour Government. I am aware that Warwickshire county council intends to freeze council tax, but will my right hon. Friend join me in urging Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council and North Warwickshire borough council, which are Labour controlled, to get on board, freeze council tax and give the hard-working people in my constituency a break?

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have provided funding to local authorities to enable the council tax freeze to be delivered. Of course, councillors in those areas will be answerable to their constituents if they fail to deliver the substantial financial benefit that that offers. He is right to say that council tax doubled during the Labour party’s time in office.

Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the cost of living increases have hit the poorest hardest, including the man I mentioned last week in Prime Minister’s questions? Should we not therefore follow the US in taxing the top 2% more, having net investment and generating an extra 1% growth, rather than hitting the poor hardest?

Danny Alexander: In that case, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the wealthiest in society are paying more in every year of this Government’s time in office than they ever did under the Labour party.

Cathy Jamieson: Analysis by Citizens Advice shows that the Chancellor’s cuts to tax credits and benefits will
	“swamp any gains from the change in personal tax allowances for almost all low income households…and many middle income families”.
	How can that hit on working families be justified on the same day as millionaires are getting a tax cut?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Lady will know that working people in this country are net beneficiaries of the measures announced in the autumn statement. I would have thought that she would welcome the fact that 2.2 million Scots will gain from the increase in the personal allowance. It is a massive policy to ensure that the working people of this country have more of their own money back in their pockets to use for themselves.

Tax System

Jeremy Lefroy: What progress HM Revenue and Customs has made in closing loopholes in the tax system.

Charlie Elphicke: What plans he has to tackle corporate tax avoidance and to close the tax gap.

David Gauke: Over this Parliament, we have introduced 31 measures to tackle tax avoidance, including loophole closures. This year, our work will focus on strengthening the disclosure regime, consulting on new sanctions for avoidance promoters and introducing the general anti-abuse rule. HMRC will also increase its risk assessment and
	specialist transfer pricing resources to target multinationals. Combined, those measures will strengthen our commitment to tackling tax avoidance and reducing the tax gap associated with it.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank the Minister for that answer. How will the Government use the presidency of the G8 this year to tackle international tax loopholes that have an effect on receipts to the UK Treasury?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to use the G8 for this purpose and to have a serious debate about tax avoidance. The OECD is looking at this matter. We are encouraging it to do so and have provided it with additional resources. It will report back on solutions that could be developed to tackle profit-shifting by multinationals and the erosion of the corporate tax base.

Charlie Elphicke: May I say how welcome it is that the UK is using the presidency of the G8 to tackle international tax avoidance, after a decade in which the Government of this country stood by while industrial tax avoidance was allowed to run rampant? I urge the Government to focus on the issue of tax presence, particularly for companies such as Amazon, which we all know are in this country and should be paying tax in this country, but are playing the rules to avoid it.

David Gauke: I will not get into individual cases. As I have said, the OECD, at the urging of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, is looking at these issues. We want to ensure that there is an international tax system whereby economic activity is taxed where it occurs. That has been overlooked for too long and we are determined to address it.

John Mann: Will the Minister join me in calling on all political parties in this country to refuse or return any donations from tax avoiders?

David Gauke: I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman might want to have a word with those on the Opposition Front Bench before he ventures into that territory.

Clive Efford: Will the Minister say why there are fewer people in the offshore investigation and affluence investigation units in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs than there are working on cutting child benefit for families?

David Gauke: I should point out that those units were not in existence under the previous Government and were introduced as a consequence of our reinvestment programme. On enforcement and compliance more generally, I also point out that if we are looking only at numbers, under the previous Government the number of people working in HMRC’s enforcement and compliance department fell by 10,000. Under this Government it will increase by 2,500.

Nick Gibb: The managing partner of Ernst & Young has dismissed the concerns of the House about aggressive tax avoidance by stating:
	“The simplest solution is to stop banging on about morality and change the law.”
	Does the Minister share my view that in a civilised society we do not live by rules and regulations alone,
	but by what we consider to be right? Should not boards of companies that operate in this country be asking themselves a key question about all their activities, including their tax policy: is this the right thing to do?

David Gauke: Increasingly, artificial contrived behaviour is something that all of us, including the public, simply do not accept. My hon. Friend is right to say that this is a board matter, and boards should take tax policy seriously. Companies should think very seriously about aggressive, artificial, contrived behaviour and there is low tolerance for such behaviour.

Kevin Brennan: Did the Minister see the footage that recently came to light of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then in opposition, appearing on the “Daily Politics” programme and advising the public about how to take advantage of tax loopholes?

David Gauke: This Chancellor has done more to tackle tax avoidance than any of his predecessors, and this Government have taken tax compliance much more seriously. I will give one more statistic: when we took office the yield from HMRC’s enforcement and compliance activity was £13 billion. We expect that number to have increased to £22 billion by the end of this Parliament. We are taking real steps to address this matter.

VAT (Colleges)

Julian Huppert: How much VAT was paid by (a) sixth-form colleges and (b) further education colleges in 2012.

Danny Alexander: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does not collect data on the VAT paid on individual goods or services at a sufficient level of detail to indentify the amount paid by sixth-form colleges and further education colleges. VAT costs, like all other costs, are taken into account as part of the up-front funding allocation.

Julian Huppert: Sixth forms and further education colleges such as Hills Road and Long Road sixth-form colleges and Cambridge Regional college do excellent work. However, they face a large VAT burden—some £300,000 for sixth-form colleges and well over £1 million for Cambridge Regional college—that schools do not face, as well as receiving less funding than the school sector. Will my right hon. Friend agree to investigate whether that anomaly can be corrected, so that sixth-form colleges and FE colleges can have a level playing field?

Danny Alexander: As my hon. Friend will know, when we took office we found a situation in which sixth-form colleges were considerably less well funded for that group of pupils than schools. We are taking steps, year by year, to equalise the funding arrangements, and we will look again at that in the spending round in the first half of this year.

Kelvin Hopkins: As a governor of Luton sixth-form college for 20 years and a former teacher of A-levels, I am convinced that sixth-form
	colleges are the most successful institutions in our education system. Is it not time for the Government to stop punishing them for their success?

Danny Alexander: I dare say that the hon. Gentleman’s comments on sixth-form colleges will be echoed by many Members of the House. That is why, as I said in answer to the earlier question, the Government are taking steps year by year to equalise the funding arrangements. I am sure he will welcome that.

Underemployment

Valerie Vaz: What recent assessment he has made of the extent of underemployment in the work force.

Greg Clark: The latest assessment was given in last week’s employment figures and showed that 90% of new jobs created were full time, and that the number of involuntary part-time workers fell by 23,000.

Valerie Vaz: The Minister will know that 70% of the jobs that have been created—the new jobs—are part time. The Office for National Statistics has said that 3.5 million people are underemployed. Is the figure of one in 10 people underemployed rising or falling?

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady is not quite right. In fact, the greater number of jobs created have been full time rather than part time. It is important to understand that the term “underemployment” refers to people who would like more hours even if they are employed full time. The fact is that 90% of people in work say they do not want any more hours. Most of the rise happened before the election. Since the election, the number of full-time jobs has increased faster than the number of part-time jobs.

Guy Opperman: The Minister and I met local enterprise partnership members in Newcastle 10 days ago and discussed the city deal and the increase in job numbers. Does he agree that, with a 9,000 increase in job numbers in the north-east in the last quarter, all jobs should be welcomed, whether they are part time or full time?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of hours being worked in the country is at a record level. We should not sneer at people who choose to work part time. That is their option, and they have more opportunities to work part time and full time than they had before.

Albert Owen: Unemployment in my constituency went up last month and is up on last year, and underemployment is increasing. People in employment want to work more hours and are not working the maximum amount to be classed as people in full-time employment. How will cutting benefits for those people—they receive in-work benefits and are on low pay—help?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman will know that, under the Labour Government, the benefits system was a barrier to people increasing their hours. The reforms this Government are making through universal credit will remove that important barrier.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to incentivise people back into work is to cut taxes for lower earners? Will he consider reintroducing the 10p income tax rate that was abolished by the previous Government?

Greg Clark: I note and receive my hon. Friend’s bid for consideration in the Budget, but he will know that we have taken people out of tax, which has been important in restoring incentives and the rewards people have for going back to work.

Infrastructure Investment

George Freeman: What recent steps he has taken to increase the level of infrastructure investment.

George Osborne: By making the hard choices to save money in areas such as welfare, this Government have been able both to reduce the deficit and to increase capital spending on the infrastructure that is vital to our economic future. That is funding more roads and rail, and faster broadband, than in the years of the previous Government, when money was wasted. Indeed, public investment as a percentage of gross domestic product is higher on average in this Parliament than under the previous Government.

George Freeman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his commitment to upgrading our infrastructure, which was so woefully neglected in Labour’s 13 years of waste. In particular, I welcome the £5.5 billion in the autumn statement for science, roads and free schools. We will never build a 21st-century economy on 19th-century infrastructure. Given the pressure on public finances, does he agree that we may need to be bold in unlocking new models in private investment? I am thinking particularly of mutual and local investment such as the tax increment financing that has financed so many American cities.

George Osborne: I agree with my hon. Friend. In East Anglia, where his constituency is, we have invested more than £280 million in life sciences, and are providing infrastructure by, for example, upgrading the A11. He is completely right that we should look at new forms of financing. We have introduced tax increment financing, as he suggests. From April this year, all authorities will, within prudential limits, have unfettered access to standard tax increment financing.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Chancellor aware that Mr John Cridland of the CBI said yesterday that the Government have a national infrastructure plan but were just incompetent at delivering it? That incompetence, which characterises the Government, is leading to a situation in which the Government will have achieved, by the end of this Parliament, about half the level of national infrastructure investment of 2008, which will cripple the competitiveness of the British economy. What is the Chancellor going to do about it?

George Osborne: It is an inconvenient truth to the hon. Gentleman that public investment as a percentage of GDP is higher on average in this Parliament than under the entire last Labour Government. That is because this Government are making the difficult choices on welfare,
	which Labour Members oppose, to save money and reduce the deficit, and to spend more, for example, on roads than they did during their period in office. That is the right priority for the taxpayer.

Jesse Norman: Can the Chancellor confirm that Labour’s last Budget planned to cut capital spending by 50%?

George Osborne: Yes I can. Again, it is an inconvenient truth that we are spending billions of pounds more on capital spending than in the Budget that half of them opposite, who were in Parliament before the last election, voted for. We are making those choices: they oppose everything because they have nothing to offer in this place.

Rachel Reeves: That is an incredibly complacent answer from the Chancellor. Does he not agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the coalition Government in fact cut capital spending in infrastructure projects too far and too fast, and that this has hampered growth and the economic recovery?

George Osborne: We are spending more on capital than the plan set out by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—the plan that the shadow Chancellor voted for. We have increased capital spending in the 2010 spending review and increased it in autumn statements since. That is why we are spending more money on roads, and it is completely hypocritical for the Labour party to complain about capital spending cuts that would have been deeper if they had stayed in office.

Rachel Reeves: It is simply not correct to say that the Government have matched the plans of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that in the first three years this Government are spending £12.8 billion less on infrastructure than the plans that they inherited. It is £6.7 billion lower in this year alone. But if the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister are now so concerned about the shrinking economy, why do they not listen to the advice the IMF gave them last week and use the Budget in March to rethink their failed economic plan?

George Osborne: I do not think that the hon. Lady is being completely straight with the House about the numbers she is using—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw.”]

Mr Speaker: Order. Hon. Members may leave this to me. The Chancellor is very versatile in his use of language and he can rephrase that. No Member would be other than straight with the House. He should withdraw that term and use another, and I feel sure that he will do so.

George Osborne: Of course I withdraw and would simply say that the hon. Lady has been very creative in the use of the numbers that she has put before the House. The number she is using is the amount of money that Labour was spending on capital before the general election, but it set out plans to cut capital after the general election. We have exceeded those plans, and it is
	completely hypocritical for the Labour party to claim that it would have spent more on capital when it clearly would not have.

Working Households (Payments)

Mary Glindon: How many working households will be affected by the changes to the uprating of tax credits and other payments announced in the autumn statement.

Sajid Javid: The 1% uprating of working age benefits and tax credits is estimated to affect 1.65 million working age households in 2015-16. Of this total, around half of the households have no individual in work and half are households in which at least one individual works at least an hour a week.

Mary Glindon: Can the Minister confirm that his Government’s own figures show that, shamefully, cuts to tax credits and other benefits will push hundreds of children in North Tyneside—and 200,000 children nationally—into poverty?

Sajid Javid: What I can confirm is that the Government are taking a very focused approach to welfare. Under the previous Government, nine out of 10 families with children were eligible for tax credits. No wonder our welfare budget was out of control. Through the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill and other reforms the Government have introduced, we are making our welfare system affordable and more focused.

Andrew Bridgen: Can my hon. Friend confirm that working families will be, on average, £125 a year better off after the announcements in the autumn statement?

Sajid Javid: I can confirm the figure used by my hon. Friend. Indeed, if we take account of all the tax changes we have made in the personal allowance, I can also say that an individual on the minimum wage and in full-time employment will see their tax bill halved under this Government.

Rushanara Ali: More than 50% of children in my constituency are living in poverty, with the Child Poverty Action Group warning that the Government’s tax and benefit changes will push 1 million children into poverty by 2020. Why did the Minister and his Department decide not to publish the child poverty impact assessment alongside the Welfare Benefits Uprating Bill?

Sajid Javid: As a child, I lived in a two-bedroom flat with seven people, and I saw child poverty on my street every day. I know that the hon. Lady cares passionately about this issue—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House must calm down. The Minister’s answer must be heard.

Sajid Javid: I respect the hon. Lady for caring passionately about this issue. She served as a commissioner on child poverty in London and has considered the issue deeply, so I hope she agrees that there is no sense in having a
	measure of child poverty that just looks at relative income. It is far more important that we all come together and look at education, jobs and access to health services, and have a proper measure of child poverty if we are to truly eradicate it.

Richard Graham: The Minister is surely right to focus on the most important elements for our young people, which include considerable Government investment in apprenticeships and taking so many people, including many of those apprentices, out of income tax altogether. Four thousand people, including many young people in my constituency, will be taken out of income tax in April. Does he agree that it is extraordinary that no one on the Opposition Benches realises the importance of this measure?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue and the help it brings, particularly with regard to apprenticeships. In fact, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), there has been a more than 100% rise in apprenticeships because of this Government.

Beer Duty Escalator

Andrew Turner: How much revenue will accrue to the Exchequer from the beer duty escalator in each of the next three years.

Sajid Javid: The Government have inherited plans to increase alcohol duties by 2% above inflation until 2014-15. The extra 2% is forecast to increase beer duty receipts by £35 million next year and £70 million the following year.

Andrew Turner: What proportion of that money is collected through pubs? Is it a relatively small amount? Will my hon. Friend consider removing this tax from pubs, many of which are central to community life in our towns and villages?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, and he has contributed to many debates on it in this House. Making the change would mean lost revenue, and we would have to find another way to cover that loss. He may find it useful if I point out some Government measures that have helped pubs, such as the changes in the annual investment allowance, the cut in the small profits rate of corporation tax and the extension of small rate relief holiday.

Lilian Greenwood: Why does the Chancellor refuse to review the impact of alcohol taxation? Is he worried that it will show the effect of VAT on the prices in our pubs, and the impact that is having on our pub sector?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady will know that the beer duty escalator was introduced by her Government. This Government have inherited those plans and are carrying them out. If she does not like this tax, perhaps she could make a stronger case if she tells us how she would cover the lost revenue.

Tax Simplification

Priti Patel: What plans he has to simplify the tax system.

David Gauke: The Government are committed to simplifying the tax system. Since 2010, we have set up the Office of Tax Simplification and have acted on a range of its recommendations. The Government are improving tax administration for small businesses and, from April 2013, will introduce a new cash basis for calculating tax, benefiting up to 3 million small self-employed businesses.

Priti Patel: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most effective way to simplify the tax system and to maximise tax yield is to reduce the burden of taxes through lower taxes?

David Gauke: It would be right to say that the Government have taken 2.2 million people out of income tax—that is certainly a simplification for them. We have reduced the small profits rate of corporation tax and reduced the main rate of corporation tax. We have taken steps, wherever possible, to reduce taxes.

Gregg McClymont: Can the Minister reassure the House that these attempts at tax simplification will be more successful than last year’s attempts, which saw U-turns on caravans, pasties, charities and the oil and gas sectors? Can he reassure the House that these attempts will work a lot better this year?

David Gauke: I can remember one particular tax simplification from the last Government, which was the abolition of the 10p rate. I think we have a better record than that.

Mark Pritchard: Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who made her case well, given that the Exchequer benefited from the courageous decision to reduce the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p, may I encourage the Chancellor to go even further in the Budget and reduce the top rate of tax to 40p, in order to see more funds come into the Exchequer?

David Gauke: I will take that as a Budget representation. The point is that the 50p rate was not effective in raising revenue—my hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point—and it was damaging to our competitiveness. There are better ways in which we can get more money from the wealthiest, and that is exactly what this Government have done.

Sheila Gilmore: Perhaps the Minister could explain how the changes in child benefit have simplified the tax process in this country.

David Gauke: A moment or so ago we heard lots of shouting about the 50p rate, yet the Labour party is the first to defend the idea that those very people should continue to receive benefits. Ensuring that child benefit is targeted best meant either looking at this on a household basis—which would have meant putting
	8 million households into the tax credit system—or adopting the approach that we have chosen, but the Labour party is always there, ready to spend taxpayers’ money where—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are obliged to the Minister, but we will move on to one more question.

Equitable Life

Therese Coffey: What progress has been made in making compensation payments under the Equitable Life payment scheme.

Sajid Javid: The scheme continues to make good progress. A detailed report will be published next week, which I am pleased to announce will highlight the fact that the scheme has paid more than £500 million to policyholders. I know that the resolution of Equitable Life is an issue that interests many Members, so I can announce that the scheme will now be moving to quarterly progress reports, with the next one published in May.

Therese Coffey: I welcome that answer from my hon. Friend. I am proud that our Government have started the payment scheme, although there are still some people who have not yet been assessed. I would encourage him to work with his officials to ensure that that happens as quickly as possible.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to be proud of the Government’s achievements on Equitable Life. The previous Government had a decade to help victims of this scandal and did absolutely nothing. As mentioned, more than £500 million of payments have already been made. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am in regular contact with the scheme administrators, and I will work closely with them on a regular basis to ensure that things can be improved.

Topical Questions

David Amess: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

George Osborne: The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability and prosperity of the economy.

David Amess: My right hon. Friend will recognise the valuable work that public sector workers do, by and large on our behalf, but he will also acknowledge the fact that their earnings have increased by only 1%. Is it the Government’s policy that benefits will not increase by any more than the increase in public sector pay?

George Osborne: It is the Government’s policy that both should rise by 1%. It is a rather bizarre argument advanced by the Labour party—that public sector pay should go up by 1%, but benefits should go up by more than 1%. The Opposition are the people who will have to explain it to the hard-working public sector taxpayers who have to pay for the welfare system.

Edward Balls: May I start by welcoming the Chancellor back from his winter mini-break in Davos? I do not know whether he got any skiing in, although he and his chums certainly went out on the piste.
	Back to Britain: in August 2010, the Chancellor also made a speech at Bloomberg, in which he claimed that his economic plan would secure the recovery. A few weeks later, his spending review said that by now we would see growth of 5.2%. Let me ask him: since his spending review, how much growth have we actually had?

George Osborne: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman noticed that I went to Davos, where I met the last two Labour Prime Ministers as well—and I could not help but notice that both of them were talking about the global economic problems. Of course we have to sort out those problems abroad, but we also have to deal with our problems at home, and of all the people now in Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman bears primary responsibility for putting Britain into this mess. The reason his economic argument is not making more traction is because no one believes that the problems that got us into this mess are the things that will get us out of it.

Edward Balls: How complacent is that? The economy is flatlining and borrowing is rising on the right hon. Gentleman’s watch. Let me tell him the facts. Since the spending review, growth has been just 0.4%, which is 13 times lower than he forecast. Our growth is slower than that of America, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Turkey—the list goes on and on. Let me ask him this: now that the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, the Deputy Prime Minister and even his dining chum the Mayor of London are losing faith in his plan, when will he listen, stop being so complacent and finally act to kick-start this flatlining economy?

George Osborne: There is no complacency about dealing with the mess that the right hon. Gentleman left behind. He talks about the economy over the last couple of years. Let me tell him what has happened in the Morley and Outwood constituency. In his area, the unemployment claimant count went up 190% under the last Government; it has fallen by 7% under this Government. The youth claimant count was 161% up under his Government; it has come down by 10% under this Government. We are fixing the problems that he created. The only job that he is interested in saving is his own. The truth is that while he remains in the post that he is in, he is a reminder to everyone of all the mistakes that Labour made when it managed the economy.

Steve Brine: A number of my constituents—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. This is a considerable discourtesy to the House. The hon. Gentleman must have his question heard.

Steve Brine: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
	A number of my constituents have been caught out by the high interest rates charged on payday loans. At a
	time when many families are struggling with high levels of personal debt, what are the Government doing to ensure that consumers are protected against bad practices in that industry and the often extremely high interest rates that are charged on such loans?

Sajid Javid: I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about this issue, and he is right to raise it today. The Government are committed to ensuring that people who borrow from payday lenders are protected against bad practices. Last January, we announced our intention to transfer the regulation of consumer credit from the Office of Fair Trading to the new Financial Conduct Authority. The FCA will have powers and sanctions to address consumer detriment in the consumer credit market, and we will shortly be publishing consultation on this very issue.

Tom Harris: May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Chancellor’s excellent judgment in supporting Labour’s spending plans up until November 2008? Will he therefore accept that the deficit he inherited was caused not by the spending plans supported by those on both sides of the House but by the worldwide recession?

George Osborne: The idea that Labour irresponsibility had nothing to do with the fact that Britain had a higher budget deficit than almost any country in the world is fanciful. The truth is that my predecessor as Chancellor has accepted that Labour was spending too much, as has Tony Blair, who was Prime Minister during that period. The only person who will not accept that is the person who was chief economic adviser at the Treasury at that time—the man who Labour have now been landed with as shadow Chancellor.

Kris Hopkins: The last Labour Government presided over a decline in manufacturing industry in West Yorkshire, which fell from 23% of local economic output in 1997 to just 14% in 2010. What steps is the Chancellor taking to reverse that trend and to support constituencies such as mine, which have relied on manufacturing for jobs and growth?

Sajid Javid: That is a shocking reminder of the economic incompetence of the previous Government and of the damage that they did to our economic base. The revitalisation of manufacturing is important for the rebalancing of our economy. Keighley in West Yorkshire has an important manufacturing tradition, and it is benefiting from the manufacturing advisory service and from the £2.7 billion of regional growth money that is going to the entire nation. Also, the announcement in the autumn statement of more money for UKTI will benefit the help that UKTI gives in Yorkshire.

Meg Hillier: Today, we saw the Government unveil their “pile ’em high, teach ’em cheap” approach to child care, hot on the heels of cuts to tax credits for poor working families and cuts to child benefit. When is the Chancellor going to unveil his supposed plans for a tax benefit for child care? What are the Government doing to support working families?

Danny Alexander: If the hon. Lady were concerned about child care, I would have thought she would welcome the fact that under this Government the free offer for three and four-year-olds has been increased from 12.5 hours to 15 hours and that this Government have put in place a new offer for the 40% most disadvantaged two-year-olds for 15 hours’ free nursery education at that age. We will bring forward the proposals to which she refers very shortly, and I hope that when she sees them, she will welcome them.

Jane Ellison: Will the Chancellor update the House on a subject on which all Members receive a great deal of correspondence—funding for small businesses? Will he in particular update us on the funding for lending scheme and other similar initiatives?

Greg Clark: I can tell my hon. Friend that in the most recent period, net lending under funding for lending has increased by £500 million. It is also the case that the average interest rate on small business loans has declined by 0.33% since the scheme was introduced.

Pamela Nash: Families living with a disabled member are going to be hardest hit by tax credits and benefit cuts. That is not according to a third-party briefing, but according to the Government’s own assessments. What do this Government have against disabled people in this country?

Danny Alexander: I think that is a very poor way to phrase the question, especially when the hon. Lady will know that disability living allowance payments, for example, are continuing to be uprated in line with inflation, even as we have to take more difficult decisions on other parts of the economy.

Jeremy Lefroy: A recent article in MoneyWeek suggested that raising the minimum wage would cut the cost of tax credits and benefits and increase employment. What work has the Treasury done on the interrelationship between the level of the minimum wage, the cost of benefits, tax revenues and employment levels?

Sajid Javid: It is not clear that tax credits are being used to supplement lower wages, but what I can say is that the Government have taken action to bring unsustainable levels of tax credit spending under control. It has already been reduced in respect of eligibility from nine out of 10 families with children to six out of 10. Our reforms are also making work pay. Universal credit will unify the current complex system of welfare and make sure it always pays for people to go into work. The withdrawal rate will aim to smooth that transition into work.

Paul Blomfield: Last Friday, the Bishop of Sheffield, the Bishop of Hallam and other faith community and civic leaders came together to launch a campaign for a fair deal for Sheffield. Will the Chancellor recognise their concern that the combined effect of his austerity programme with unevenly distributed cuts and benefit changes that
	hit the poorest hardest is having a disproportionate impact on our urban areas and our big cities? Will he listen to those concerns?

Greg Clark: Yesterday, I meet the leader and chief executive of Sheffield and we were discussing the very good progress made in the Sheffield “city deal”, which all parties, including the hon. Gentleman’s, strongly support as being key to the economic prosperity of Sheffield in the future. I would hope that he would welcome that.

Stephen Williams: We already know that in April the personal tax allowance is going to be raised to £9,400—the largest rise in history. By the time we next meet for Treasury questions, the Chancellor will have put the finishing touches to his Budget. I now urge him to take the final step and deliver £10,000 of tax-free pay in time for April 2014.

George Osborne: We have a very clear commitment to reach that £10,000. We have not put a time scale on it, but even under the plans we have already put forward, that level will be reached with inflation increases before the end of this Parliament. This is a good example of two parties coming together to help working people across this country.

Graham Jones: In the autumn statement of 2011, the Chancellor allocated £5 million to combat metal theft, which through Operation Tornado has been highly successful. With that funding coming to an end, was that a knee-jerk reaction or is the Chancellor going to continue it?

George Osborne: I am happy to look at the funding for the metal theft initiative, but I know that the Government have introduced regulation to clamp down on this crime, which can of course endanger people’s lives.

Nadhim Zahawi: In a debate in this Chamber, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) accepted this Government’s spending envelope, but was quickly shot down by the shadow Chancellor. Is not the real problem here the fact that to be credible on the economy, the Labour party needs to come up with a policy that stands up?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend has described the comments of the right hon. Member for South Shields as a speech. I think we could describe them as an audition.

Barry Sheerman: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is being lobbied heavily by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, for a massive increase in infrastructure spending in London. Does he realise that if he really wants to get our economy going, he should be investing in the infrastructure of the towns, cities and regions of our country, particularly Yorkshire and the north-west?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman may not have been aware of it, but an announcement was made yesterday that was germane to his point: the announcement of the extension of High Speed 2 to Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester, which, in 13 years in government, his party never got around to delivering.

Penny Mordaunt: The Minister may be aware of the report on football governance which was published today by the Culture, Media and
	Sport Committee. I want to record my thanks to him and to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for their help in dealing with Portsmouth football club. Will he assure us that his Department will play its full part in ensuring that prospective owners who are not fit and proper do not get their mitts on these important community assets and destroy them?

David Gauke: The Government will, of course, look closely at the Committee recommendations. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport has made clear, it is time for football to get its house in order.

David Anderson: The Chancellor is well known for trying to help us Back Benchers to do our job. Would he be so kind as to place in the Library the criteria that he uses to define whether or not the economy is in the danger zone, and will he tell whether it is in the danger zone today?

George Osborne: There is a pretty simple definition. Every day and every week the British Government have to go and borrow money to fund the extremely large deficit that was left behind, but we can command record low interest rates because of the confidence that the rest of the world has in our economic plans.

James Morris: Unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds in my constituency is 15% lower than it was in December 2011, but does the Chancellor agree that we still need to do more to improve young people’s skills, especially in the context of the black country city deal, which is focusing on skills in advanced manufacturing? May I commend that proposal to the Treasury team?

Greg Clark: I was in Wolverhampton recently, meeting business and civic leaders from the black country. The proposals to increase skills to help the advanced manufacturing sector in the area to expand are well under way, and I look forward to responding to the bid very soon.

Andy Sawford: In opposition, the Chancellor was fond of quoting the Institute for Fiscal Studies in support of his policies. Does he accept
	the finding by the IFS that because of all the changes that he has made following his autumn statement, the average one-earner family with children will be £534 worse off by 2015?

George Osborne: I am fond of quoting the IFS in government as well, and it says that Labour’s plans would add £200 billion to borrowing.

Mark Menzies: What assurances can the Minister give me that if shale gas production is given the go-ahead in Fylde it will not be just the Treasury or the company that will benefit, and that substantial benefits will flow to the local community?

George Osborne: I know that my hon. Friend has a strong constituency interest in this issue. We want to see the shale gas revolution come to the United Kingdom—it has done wonders for the United States economy—but that must, of course, happen in a way that does not damage the environment and enables communities to benefit. I shall be happy to work with my hon. Friend, and other Members of Parliament throughout the House who may be affected, to ensure that communities share the benefits—which I hope can be shared by the whole economy—of this new form of energy extraction.

Ian Austin: On the many other occasions on which the economy has gone into reverse under this Chancellor, he has blamed the snow, and he has blamed the floods. When people took time off in the summer to go on holiday, he presumably blamed the sun. He has blamed the Americans, and he has blamed the Europeans. He blamed the Queen’s jubilee. He even blamed her grandson for getting married. Whose fault is it this time?

George Osborne: I think that I have been pretty consistent in blaming that lot opposite.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues. It is always box office, and demand has greatly exceeded supply. We must now move on to the urgent question.

Deployment to Mali

John Baron: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on deployment to Mali.

Philip Hammond: On 14 January the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), made a statement to the House outlining the UK’s deployment of two C-I7 transport aircraft to provide logistical support to France, as well as a small detachment of technical personnel deployed to Bamako airport to assist with the reception of the C-I7 aircraft. Since that announcement, we have decided to extend our support to the continued provision of one C-I7 in support of the French for a further three months. There are currently about 20 people deployed in Bamako supporting liaison with French forces and, following a French request for additional surveillance support, we have deployed a Sentinel R1 aircraft to Dakar, Senegal, with supporting ground crew and technical support staff of about 70 people.
	EU Foreign Ministers agreed on 17 January to establish an EU military training mission to Mali—EUTM—and work is ongoing to scope that mission. Today in Brussels, representatives from EU member states, including the UK, will meet to discuss the individual member state contributions to the mission. The UK is prepared to contribute up to 40 personnel to the EUTM, either in an HQ or training team role. We do not envisage UK personnel fulfilling a force protection role, and it is quite possible that all 40 personnel will not be required, dependent on the contributions from other member states. I can assure the House that we will not allow UK personnel to deploy on any mission until we are satisfied that adequate force protection arrangements are in place.
	Today in Addis Ababa the African Union is hosting a donor conference to discuss how the international community can support the African-led intervention force, AFISMA, in delivering the role that the United Nations Security Council has mandated it to fulfil. The UK will today offer £5 million for two new UN funds to support the strengthening of security in Mali, with £3 million directed to AFISMA and £2 million to activity in Mali that facilitates and supports political processes for building stability. The UK is also prepared to offer up to 200 personnel to provide training to troops from Anglophone west African countries contributing to AFISMA, although the numbers required will be dependent upon the requirements of the AFISMA contributing nations. To establish those requirements, we have deployed a small number of advisers to Anglophone west African countries that are likely to contribute to the AFISMA mission, to assess their needs and to gain situational awareness.
	Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers will provide an update to the House on the outcome of the discussions in Brussels and Addis Ababa at the appropriate moment.

John Baron: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and thank the Secretary of State for his answer.
	British involvement in Mali and the wider region is deepening, and it is clearly in everyone’s interests that we do not allow legitimate Governments to fail, particularly when faced with extremists. It is no secret that I opposed our recent interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, because I fear that one can be drawn into ever-deepening conflicts. Afghanistan illustrated the dangers of being sucked into larger deployments. That mission morphed into something much larger: it changed from a mission to defeat al-Qaeda or deny it the use of Afghanistan to one of nation-building.
	Drawing on our lessons in Afghanistan—and, perhaps, on other interventions—will the Government clarify the following points? We need greater clarity on the role of British troops. The Government have said they will not be placed in a combat role, but there are a host of grey areas between combat roles and support roles. What exactly will these advisers do? Will they be involved in logistics or training, or will they advise on strategy? Equally importantly, how will they be protected? Are we deploying troops on the ground to protect these advisers, or are we relying on our French colleagues to provide that protection?
	May I also ask the Secretary of State what exactly is the exit strategy? It is very easy to get drawn into these situations, but it is not always clear what the endgame and exit strategy are, and even what the endgame looks like. What are the contingency plans if military progress does not go to plan? Is there talk on the table that we should perhaps be deploying or committing, or be prepared to commit, more troops if the fighting goes badly? At the moment, that is all going well, but the situation can change very quickly.
	Finally, what lessons should we learn from United Nations Security Council resolution 2085, which was passed last year and called on local African nations to lead the combat role in defeating these extremists in northern Mali? There was tremendous delay in the implementation of that resolution. What lessons have we learned from that, because we seem to be playing catch-up? On a related but slightly separate issue, what is the international community’s broader strategy on encouraging local forces to play a more proactive role, not only in Mali, but in the wider region, in combating these extremists? These are legitimate questions and the British public and we as a House need to ask them, because there is a real danger of getting drawn into a much larger deployment, particularly if things do not go to plan on the ground.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his questions. First, the UK has a clear interest in the stability of Mali and in ensuring that its territory does not become an ungoverned space available to al-Qaeda and its associates to organise for attacks on the west. Secondly, we have established military co-operation with France, which is an important part of Britain’s strategy for the future, and this situation, along with the Libya campaign, is an opportunity for us to demonstrate the validity of that working relationship with France. The role of British troops, as I set out in my response to the urgent question, is clearly not a combat role, and it will also not extend, as we envisage it at the moment, to a force protection role. We are looking for force protection arrangements to be put in place, probably by the French, but certainly by the European Union in relation to the EU training mission.
	My hon. Friend asked me about the exit strategy. France has made it clear that it envisages a short intervention to stabilise the situation on the ground while the African forces from neighbouring countries and the Malian army deploy to sustain the situation in the longer term. We concur with that strategy. I should say, again, that it is not our intention to deploy combat troops; we are very clear about the risks of mission creep and we have defined very carefully the support that we are willing and able to provide to the French and the Malian authorities.
	My hon. Friend referred to UN Security Council resolution 2085 and the time delay in deploying African forces. I think it is well known that the intention was to deploy African forces in support of the Malian authorities later this year, but the situation on the ground has become more urgent, hence the decision by the French to intervene. Some of these forces require equipment and some require additional training, and the response time to the mobilisation envisaged by resolution 2085 has perhaps been longer than we would have liked. The lesson we can learn from that is that if we want local forces to be able to deploy and respond to resolutions of this nature, we may have to take a more proactive role in resourcing them to do so.
	On the broader strategy for encouraging local forces to tackle extremism, part of our defence posture, set out in the strategic defence and security review 2010, is to devote an increasing proportion of our defence resources to upstream engagement, building capacity in fragile nation states to allow them to deal with early threats to their security, rather than waiting for the situation to degenerate to the point at which it requires outside intervention.

Jim Murphy: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving us the opportunity to discuss security in north Africa today, and I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is essential that Mali does not become a haven for terrorism, which would allow militants to oppress a people, hold territory, destabilise a region and threaten UK interests. It is therefore vital that the international community enables Mali and its neighbours to defend themselves.
	Let me turn to six specific issues. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that no UK personnel will be redeployed to Mali from Afghanistan? What other European allies plan to commit trainers and at what level?
	There will be broader worries about mission creep. The UK commitment to Mali has grown from lending the French two transport aircraft to the deployment of perhaps hundreds of troops to the region. It appears clear that Islamists have chosen to abandon population centres and might now melt away across near-non-existent borders. It is possible that they will be able to regroup and return to carry out the type of terror attacks we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the ability and intent of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and its associates to do so?
	I want the Secretary of State to say more about force protection. If UK trainers are based in Bamako, which has not to date been the centre of violence, that might make them and the capital a target. Our forces will, I assume, be armed, so what will the rules of engagement be? UK trainers might be non-combat, but that does
	not mean that they are without risk. They are deployed and will need to be protected in a hostile environment, so what security guarantees has he received from French forces about protecting UK trainers as a condition of this deployment from day one?
	We all know that lasting stability will be achieved through a political process, so will the Secretary of State outline the strategy to achieve that? In particular, will he give his assessment of whether the Tuareg people will be part of the process?
	While we consider the importance of winning hearts and minds in Mali, there is another country where public consent must be retained and that is here in the UK. The public are wary and weary of conflict as a consequence of recent history. There will be worries about mission creep and the safety of UK trainers and it is essential that the Secretary of State allays those fears today.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, although I have to say that there was a little bit of fence sitting. Although we all recognise that the public are wary and weary of conflict, I did not hear a clear indication of whether he supports the actions that the Government propose to take in support of this French mission.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the redeployment of troops from Mali to Afghanistan and I assume he meant Afghanistan to Mali. We are acutely conscious of the primacy of the operation in Afghanistan and the limits of what we have been able to offer the French in this operation are defined largely by the need not to degrade our capabilities in Afghanistan. We are looking all the time at what we can do without impacting on the air bridge or the operation in Afghanistan. As he noted, our initial response was to offer logistical support as that was what was urgently required to get French troops and equipment into Mali. The French ask has evolved to include additional surveillance capability, which we have now provided with the Sentinel R1. Over the next weeks and months the requirement will be for training of the Anglophone African troops who will provide the force in support of the Malian army in due course.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked for an assessment of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. It is fair to say that our situational awareness of the Maghreb is not as great as we would like it to be. It is not an area where Britain has had traditional involvement, but we are making strong efforts to obtain awareness of what is going on there. We should not underestimate the potential for terrorist threats to emerge from the Islamic Maghreb, but nor should we overestimate the strength of the Islamists in this region.
	The right hon. Gentleman also asked about our forces on the ground in Bamako. Bamako is well to the south of Mali and the problems are in the north. I agree that it is not impossible that Islamists could penetrate the south of the country in small groups, but there are many reasons why it might be difficult for them to operate there. The rules of engagement for British personnel will be on the basis of self-defence when they are based at Bamako. Force protection is provided within the airfield at Bamako by the French forces on the ground. As I said earlier in relation to any UK training mission,
	we will not allow any UK trainers to deploy until we are satisfied that adequate force protection measures are in place.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the political process, and of course a political process is essential. I envisage that the European Union will be engaged in economic and political development in Mali in the future. The involvement of the Taureg people, of course, is essential to a sustainable and lasting peace in that country.

Peter Tapsell: May I repeat to my right hon. Friend what I said unavailingly to his five Labour predecessors as Defence Secretary that the more frequently western forces intervene in Muslim countries, the greater will be the spread of jihadism throughout the whole Islamic world and the higher the threat of terrorism in this country?

Philip Hammond: I hear my right hon. Friend’s warning loudly and clearly, but of course precisely the problem that we are dealing with is that Mali is not an Islamic country. Mali is a country with a majority Christian population, with a significant Islamic minority. It is a country of two halves geographically, climatically, religiously, culturally and ethnically. That is the challenge, but the solution must be a democratically elected Government in Bamako who effectively represent all parts of that country. That is the long-term aim that we all aspire to achieve.

Bob Ainsworth: Our commitment to Mali and the region has grown considerably over the past few days. Notwithstanding the relatively positive news that is coming from the country, no one really believes that the security issues will be addressed in the short term. How long does the right hon. Gentleman envisage the deployments that he is confirming today are likely to be? The relatively small numbers that he is reporting to the House need to be supported by far larger numbers if such an operation is to be sustained. How many people overall will be necessary to sustain the commitment over time?

Philip Hammond: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s last point. The numbers that we have outlined are the numbers that we envisage sustaining the Sentinel aircraft based in Dakar, Senegal—about 70 people. That is the requirement to sustain the aircraft there. We have about 20 people on the ground in Bamako. The C-17 we envisage staying for up to three months. We have not set a time limit for the surveillance capability; it will stay for as long as we can provide it without impact on other operations and as long as it is useful. The training mission has not yet been defined, so it would be premature for me to talk about a time scale, but it clearly will be a finite time scale in preparing the African Anglophone nations’ forces for deployment to Mali.

Malcolm Rifkind: The liberation of Timbuktu and other towns in the north is, of course, very much to be welcomed, but my right hon. Friend will remember from the precedent of both Iraq and Afghanistan that the liberation of towns and cities is the easy part and that there is every probability that
	there will be many years of asymmetrical conflict in Mali unless a political solution is achieved. Will he advise the House whether he is having discussions with the Foreign Secretary to ensure that Britain can make a contribution that, in particular, would try to divide the jihadi terrorists from the other local insurgents who do not have international aspirations, thereby making the prospect of ultimate peace that much more foreshortened?

Philip Hammond: My right hon. and learned Friend is right of course to warn of the prospect of asymmetric conflict. Although it is reassuring that towns such as Timbuktu have been taken by French forces, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that that is equivalent to the defeat of the Islamist forces in the area. They have melted away and will, no doubt, regroup and return in one form or another.
	My right hon. and learned Friend is also right in saying that the key strategic imperative is to separate the jihadists from those northern Malian rebels whose discontent with the Government is more secular in nature. There is some evidence that that is already happening and that the presence of Malian Government and French forces in the area will encourage and accelerate that process, but I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is acutely aware of the need for rapid political progress, as well as rapid military progress.

Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister bear in mind that, whatever the merits of what is presently proposed, the American catastrophe in Vietnam started with the deployment of American troops in a training and advisory capacity?

Philip Hammond: I am sure that those lessons have been taken firmly on board and are part of the military folklore that informs decision taking today.

Menzies Campbell: Although my right hon. Friend may be able to justify in the short term the step change in Britain’s commitment in Mali that he has announced this morning, what account is being taken of the long-term implications of such a commitment, not least if there is success in Mali followed by displacement of al-Qaeda to other more favourable countries in north Africa? How far are we willing to pursue them?

Philip Hammond: My right hon. and learned Friend talks about a step change in Britain’s commitment in Mali. Let me set this in context. In the SDSR, we made it clear that a greater part of Britain’s defence effort in future would be devoted to training, supporting and upskilling local forces in fragile areas, to prevent the breakdown of order in such countries. We are proposing to deploy up to 200 troops in a training role to support four Anglophone countries in west Africa to prepare forces to intervene in Mali. That seems to me to be a very well leveraged use of British forces, British resources and British capability to deliver effect at minimal cost and risk to ourselves.

Angus Robertson: The Secretary of State has drawn attention to the fact that discussions involving other countries are taking place in Brussels
	about the commitment that they are prepared to make to Mali. Will he update the House on commitments that have been made thus far by EU neighbours, including countries such as Denmark, and confirm that those discussions also involve countries that are not in the EU, such as Norway and Canada?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right; some offers of assistance have already been provided—I have just had a discussion this morning with the Belgian Defence Minister—but it would be better, if he does not mind, to await the completion of the discussion today. I can assure him, as I have already assured Mr Speaker, that one of my colleagues from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will come to update the House as soon as we have the readout from that discussion and the one in Addis Ababa.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) was entirely right to urge on my right hon. Friend extreme caution in this matter. However, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the EU training mission to Somalia is a useful precedent here? That is one of the areas in EU defence that has actually been rather successful, unlike most of the rest of it, and that is therefore a proper course to follow. Will he give us an indication of what the Nigerians intend to do? That is a Christian and Muslim country; it should be able to help out in Mali; and it has well trained troops as well.

Philip Hammond: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend that the EU training mission in Somalia has been a success. Indeed, I see some similarity between the situation in Somalia and that in Mali. What is required in Mali is military training, economic development support and rule of law and civil governance reform, to help that country to achieve stable and sustainable government in the future. That is something that I believe the EU is well positioned to lead on and to deliver, and we look forward to supporting it in that effort.

Dennis Skinner: Now that the Defence Secretary is talking about sending in troops and weapons, will he bear it in mind that when the intervention took place in Libya—at a very low level, we were told by the Government at the beginning—and when those Benghazi rebels were provided with large numbers of weapons, we found that al-Qaeda and other terrorists in Mali and north Africa were using the same weapons that Britain and other countries had supplied. That is mission creep, and if he is not careful, it will get even worse.

Philip Hammond: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I did not refer to weapons. We have talked about troops in a training role. Our preference would be that that training is carried out in the countries that are providing the troops—Nigeria, Gambia, Sierra Leone and Ghana—and if not, that it is carried out in Bamako. It will not be in the forward regions where the fighting is taking place.

Bob Stewart: I support the deployment of a Sentinel R1, but may I urge my right hon. Friend to be slightly careful about the use of language? We have already deployed a C-17 to Bamako,
	and that C-17 has a section of the RAF Regiment within it—for force protection. Force protection personnel are combat troops. They may not be used in combat, but they are combat troops.

Philip Hammond: Yes, I hear what my hon. Friend says. The C-17 is currently carrying out missions moving equipment and troops from France to Bamako and from Dakar in Senegal and other capitals in the region into Bamako, so its mission is into the country, rather than within the country.

David Winnick: After 11 years of warfare in Afghanistan, does the Secretary of State accept that there is no appetite whatever in this country for British troops to be sucked into a new war, a war far away, and a war that could easily escalate? Does he also accept that arising from what he has said today, there should be another statement as quickly as possible next week on what has occurred?

Philip Hammond: I have already made a commitment that there will be another statement on the outcome of the meetings today. It may be next week; it may be sooner. As soon as we are in a position to inform the House, we will do so. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course there is no appetite to be sucked into another war—there never is—but there is an appetite to be safe and secure. There is an appetite to ensure that terrorists cannot establish freedom of movement in an area such as the Sahel in order to attack us in the future. I say again that this appears to me to be a very limited and well-leveraged intervention by Britain in support of the French, who have deployed significant numbers of troops and equipment, and who are doing the heavy lift alongside the Malians. What we are now proposing to do is help to reinforce the English-speaking African countries which have also indicated that they are prepared to contribute forces to deal with this as a regional problem. That is the right way to solve such a problem, and our limited support for it is a highly effective way of Britain leveraging its capabilities.

Penny Mordaunt: Non-interventionism is in vogue, but does the Secretary of State agree that because of the nature of the UK, our trade routes and our status, we have huge interests across the world, and consequently, that this sort of capacity-building exercise is time and money well spent?

Philip Hammond: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I remind her and other hon. Members of the risks to our society and the societies of our allies if we allow areas of ungoverned space to fall under the control of al-Qaeda and its associates and to become a place where they can plan and execute attacks on our interests.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State recognise that Mali is in a post-colonial situation and there is great tension between the north and the south, and that the failure of successive Governments in Mali to address the wishes of the Tuareg people has led to this conflict, as has the exploitation of the country’s minerals? Does he not accept that unless there is a political solution to those issues in Mali, western forces will be there for a very long time
	and we will be sucked into a horrible war from which we will end up ultimately having to make a humiliating retreat?

Philip Hammond: I do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I of course accept that, for there to be a sustainable peaceful situation in Mali over the longer term, there will have to a political solution to the tensions that exist between the north and the south of the country—tensions that, frankly, were created by a colonial map drawer and were pretty predictable when one looks at the ethnic and religious make-up of that country. But the fact that the regional powers are prepared to deploy in support of the Malian army is something that we should very much celebrate and support. Let there be a regional solution to the short-term problems in Mali, and by all means let us be active and forward-leaning in our support for a long-term political solution to the problem.

Nick Harvey: I strongly support the Defence Secretary’s announcement today, which I believe to be well judged in every particular. I welcome the fact that other countries in the EU recognise the threat to all of our security that would be represented by ungoverned space in that part of the world, and their willingness to join in this training mission. So long as we are being guaranteed that there is no question of our moving into a combat role, I do not think we should view these or any subsequent requests for practical help as mission creep. We should be willing to make a long-term contribution in west Africa, building up regional capacity so that on future occasions western troops will not be required to move in.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree with the sentiments that he expressed. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we have no intention of entering a combat role in Mali. The French have taken the lead and supporting them is the sensible and the right thing to do.

Mike Gapes: Thirteen years ago I went to Sierra Leone with the Defence Committee and saw British troops and Gurkhas training the Sierra Leonean armed forces. I am therefore very pleased that Sierra Leone is one of the countries that is prepared to take on the African mission, but does not this raise a wider question of long-term co-operation between the European Union and the African Union to make sure that we do not have to have ad hoc intervention forces, which might take a year or maybe longer to establish, but that when necessary we can intervene to preserve democracy and defend people against extremism?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. The EU training mission in Somalia and the support arrangements for the African Union intervention in Somalia have come to work very well, but they took a while to get together at the beginning. Now we are embarking on a new activity on the other side of the continent and we are starting from scratch again. His point is well made. Is there a mechanism by which we can create some standing apparatus to ensure that when the need arises for local or regional intervention, supported by outside expertise and resources, we can
	provide it quickly and effectively? I am happy to pass on those thoughts to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

James Gray: I welcome the Secretary of State’s reassurances about the very limited commitment in Mali not cutting across our capabilities in Afghanistan, but he well knows that the C-17s play a central role in the air bridge and in our commitment to withdrawing by the end of next year. Is he absolutely certain that there will be no possible diminution in that determination if, for example, the commitment of the C-17s were to be extended beyond the three months to which he is committed?

Philip Hammond: The commitment that we have made on the C-17 is for three months and the reason that we have limited it to three months is precisely because we would want at that point to review what impact, if any, any extension beyond that time would have on the air bridge to Afghanistan. Afghanistan remains our principal focus and we will not do anything that will impinge upon success there.

Hugh Bayley: Nobody welcomes the deployment of British troops abroad, but the UK is right to provide support to France and to the Anglophone west African countries, which, in long run, ought to be giving the security guarantees that are needed in Mali. Will the Secretary of State explain why this is an EU security lead rather than a NATO security lead, what liaison there is between the EU and NATO, and what both bodies are doing to assess where the rebels and their armaments will go next so that we can have a regional response to the crisis?

Philip Hammond: My view is that this type of operation, where there is a military component and a much wider dimension within the country—a need to establish the rule of law and proper civil governance, and an ongoing need for economic development assistance—is ideally suited to EU involvement. At the moment, the French operation is a national operation, but the fact that the EU has been prepared to propose a training mission is welcome. There is, as yet, no NATO activity around this operation. It is a French operation first, then an EU and an AFISMA operation.
	I should correct something that I said earlier. I said that the majority of Malians were Christians, but in fact the majority of Malians are Muslims. The ethnic split, not the religious split, puts the majority in the south.

Patrick Mercer: Things go wrong in war. While I absolutely understand all the rightly cautious points that the Secretary of State has made, what forces are earmarked and what contingency plans are in place for when those things do indeed go wrong?

Philip Hammond: We do not expect things to go wrong. We are talking about deploying a small, 200-strong-maximum training force, probably to Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone and Gambia, and, as I have outlined, we have a very small number of forces on the ground in Bamako. As my hon. Friend would expect, permanent joint headquarters continually makes plans for contingencies, although he would not expect me to outline in detail what those plans are. He will know from his own experience that the
	military are almost obsessive-compulsive about having contingency plans for every operation that they are engaged in, and I can assure him that they will have contingency plans for this one.

Paul Flynn: Why have the Government not honoured the pledge that the Foreign Secretary gave me a fortnight ago when he gave a broad assurance that we would discuss in this House, and vote on, whether we deployed soldiers abroad? When the Government decided to go into Helmand province in 2006, they hoped that not a shot would be fired. Then, only two British soldiers had died in combat after five years of warfare; now, the figure is 440. Is not there a grave danger that Mali could turn into another Helmand?

Philip Hammond: No, I do not think so. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to an answer that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave in relation to the use of war powers. The troops that we are talking about deploying will not be used in a combat role, and the war powers issue does not arise. They will be deployed in a training and support role.

Margot James: Limited military engagement in a supportive capacity to the French and African forces is a precursor to the nation building that is likely to be required, alongside what has been achieved in Somalia, in order to reduce the Islamist al-Qaeda threat. Does my right hon. Friend agree that compared with Afghanistan, Mali and the wider Sahel region is in Europe’s back yard and is a direct threat to our common security?

Philip Hammond: Allowing ungoverned space in Afghanistan would also represent a direct threat to Europe’s security. We know that a significant proportion of the security threats to the UK arise, and have arisen in the past, from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. What is a threat to Europe’s security and Britain’s security is ungoverned space in which terrorists can organise, exercise freedom of movement, and launch attacks. Wherever ungoverned space arises, whether it is in Somalia, the Sahel, or the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, we have to take appropriate action to close it down so that that space becomes properly governed and properly monitored.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State kindly for clarifying many of the issues that concern us. There is a great humanitarian crisis developing in Mali, with 230,000 people displaced and 150,000 people having left the country. Will the deployment involve help for the deepening humanitarian crisis and for the infrastructure rebuild?

Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary is very much engaged with this issue. The deployment that I have talked about today is a training mission, but we are also looking to provide humanitarian support in the short term to deal with the movement of people in response to conflict, and in the longer term as part of an EU initiative to support the development of civil governance and economic development, particularly in the north of the country, thus addressing some of the underlying problems of at least part of this insurgency.

Bob Russell: In this increasingly troubled world, will the Secretary of State reflect on whether it is prudent and in Britain’s interests to cut the size of our armed forces?

Philip Hammond: I can tell you my view on that, Mr Speaker. It is prudent to have a balanced defence budget and to be able properly to equip the troops that we have and seek to use to defend this nation’s security. I am afraid that given the state of the defence budget that we inherited from Labour, we have taken the only responsible set of actions that we could take in order to secure Britain’s defence for the future.

Keith Vaz: May I support and welcome the steps taken by the Government, which I am sure are welcomed by countries near Mali? The Secretary of State mentioned ungoverned space. One country with a lot of ungoverned space is Yemen, where yesterday eight people were killed in a suicide bomb attack by affiliates of al-Qaeda. If the Government of Yemen request the same support that those other countries near Mali have requested, will our Government be prepared to give them that support?

Philip Hammond: We have good relationships with the Government of Yemen and we provide advice and support to them. The President of Yemen was in London a few months ago, and we had very constructive discussions. The action proposed by the AFISMA countries is mandated by a UN Security Council resolution, and the action that we are taking is to support these countries in the discharge of that mandate.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it has for some time been the intention to provide training in a number of west African countries as a form of upstream engagement? For the clarity of the House, will he elaborate on the differences between AFISMA, Operation Newcombe, and the EU training mission?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This training support should be seen in the context of our ongoing and very good relations with the Anglophone countries of west Africa, where we already have in place excellent military-to-military relationships and provide some training to them. This is very much a continuation and a stepping up of an activity for which there is established precedent, and I hope that the House will support it on that basis.

Thomas Docherty: The Secretary of State will have seen the report in Friday’s Le Monde about atrocities that have allegedly been committed by Mali Government forces as they have seized back territory. Will he explain why we are not making it an absolute requirement on the Mali Government to investigate and co-operate fully with the International Criminal Court before we give them a single shilling?

Philip Hammond: We are making the point very clearly to the Malian Government that if they want to benefit from the support of the United Kingdom and other members of the international community, they must respond swiftly and effectively to the allegations that
	have been made. The French forces command in Mali is also very focused on the need to address this issue promptly.

Oliver Colvile: Does my right hon. Friend envisage 3 Commando Brigade playing a part in this initiative?

Philip Hammond: No.

Nick Smith: May I press the Secretary of State? Will he tell us more about the relationship between the European Union training mission and the French military mission? Will he also tell us what is happening to the Sentinel security system, which was going to be cut under the strategic defence and security review? Will it be reprieved?

Philip Hammond: To answer the last question first, the ongoing use of Sentinel is not currently funded beyond 2015. It remains one of the candidate programmes for the—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) cackles from the Opposition Front Bench, but he was a Defence Minister in the previous Government who left us with a £38 billion gap between the equipment they had ordered and the budgets available to pay for it. We are having to prioritise and identify the programmes that are most important to maintaining Britain’s national security. Sentinel is a candidate programme for funding after 2015, and we will continue to look at its run-on costs and whether we can justify the investment in them.

Julian Brazier: I welcome the rounded and proportionate response that my right hon. Friend has outlined. Has the National Security Council asked the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and other relevant Departments to talk to their French counterparts about how we can flesh out this mission as a whole so that it is not purely a military one?

Philip Hammond: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that DFID and Foreign Office officials and Ministers are in touch with their French counterparts and that there has been a great deal of traffic backwards and forwards between London and Paris over the past 10 days.

Rushanara Ali: The Secretary of State mentioned £5 million being contributed towards United Nations funds. What proportion of that will come from the Ministry of Defence budget and what proportion, if any, will come from DFID budgets? Will he also tell us when we can expect an announcement on what kind of humanitarian assistance the British Government will provide and when?

Philip Hammond: I will alert my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary to the hon. Lady’s last question and ensure that when a further statement is made to the House—I anticipate that it will be made very shortly—that issue will be covered in it.
	I am not absolutely certain, but I assume that the £5 million that I referred to will come from the conflict pool, which is a cross-Government, tri-departmental
	pool of money. If I am wrong about that, I will write to the hon. Lady and place a copy of the letter in the House.

Steven Baker: My right hon. Friend has emphasised the issue of ungoverned spaces. Mali is five times the size of the UK, or thereabouts, with a quarter of the population, and Algeria ten times the size with a population three fifths the size of ours. What are his expectations for the proper governance of these vast, empty spaces?

Philip Hammond: Governance should not be confused with policing. Proper governance is about a system for bringing the people of the northern part of Mali into the overall governance of the country, making the Tuareg population feel part of the overall structure and having a demonstrably fair system for sharing the nation’s resources and wealth. That will be the key. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the sparsity of population and the vast spaces defy any aspiration to be able to police them in the conventional sense.

John Cryer: If there were ever an example of mission creep, this is it. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), at what point will the Secretary of State test the will of Parliament?

Philip Hammond: I do not accept that this is an example of mission creep. What we have done is extremely modest. We are providing strategic air-lift support for a limited period and one surveillance aircraft, operating from a neighbouring, friendly country, and we are now talking about deploying up to 250 troops in a training role, most of which will be carried out in the countries donating the troop forces. I do not consider that to be an escalation of the scale characterised by the hon. Gentleman.

Rehman Chishti: Given the difficult terrain in Mali and the surrounding area, is the United Kingdom likely to provide drone assistance, as it did in Libya and Afghanistan, either as surveillance or on a front-line basis?

Philip Hammond: We currently assess that we could not provide drones or unmanned aerial vehicles of any sort in support of the French campaign in Mali without it having an unacceptable impact on our operations in Afghanistan, so we have declined to do so.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Secretary of State has rightly referred on a number of occasions to the need for political reform, economic development and humanitarian relief, but he will know that people have been saying that Mali has needed that for years and warning that if Mali did not get it, we would have problems with that country. It would be all too easy, after, I hope, a quick military success, for those long-term commitments to be forgotten, so what guarantees can we have that there will indeed be the sustained support that is undoubtedly needed from Britain and the European Union?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is an unfortunate fact of life that it is only when countries force themselves to the top of the news agenda, sometimes for completely the wrong reason, that everybody recognises that we have known that
	there was a problem there for a long time and that we knew what needed to be done, but did not quite do it. I would hope, having now focused on the challenge and seen in Algeria the week before last the potential consequences of allowing terrorist organisations to gain ground in this area, that the EU in particular will have the will and the tenacity to see this through and to do what needs to be done over the medium to longer term.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) is surely right to raise the high human and financial cost of earlier interventions under the previous Government, but there is a danger of seeing everything through the prism of previous experience. I support the Defence Secretary’s commitment today to deploying considerable British military training capabilities alongside allies, with the support of neighbouring countries and with full awareness of the dangers of mission creep in Mali, for the better security of Europe. Does he agree, however, that training in fragile areas comes under the heading of conflict resolution and that it would, therefore, be appropriate for DFID to make a wholesome contribution to the costs of this training mission?

Philip Hammond: My ears are always open to any suggestion that anybody else might contribute to activity that otherwise falls on the defence budget, but as I said earlier the funding for this operation will come from the conflict pool and from pooled funds that are available for precisely this type of intervention. This is an arrangement that is working extremely well across Government and is one of the successes of the past couple of years.

Mark Durkan: Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State has said, he will understand that many will remain concerned about the quick-sand syndrome overtaking these deployments, particularly in the absence of the political and economic engagement developing a more visible and viable profile. He is right to characterise so darkly the terrorist threat, but he must also acknowledge that Malian Government forces face allegations of serious human rights abuses, including recently. How is he proofing those whom he is deploying in a support role against any future suggestion that they will be implicated in supporting such abuses in the future?

Philip Hammond: British forces have clear rules of engagement. The forces we have deployed so far will be limited to engagement on the basis of self-defence only if they are attacked. I have already acknowledged our concerns about the allegations that have been made about Malian forces, and I know that our French colleagues have similar concerns and are addressing them with the Malian Government and the Malian forces on the ground. This situation is in a state of flux on the ground. The Malian forces are regrouping. Some of their command and control systems are currently inadequate, but the French are seeking to make a difference on the ground.

Philip Hollobone: What is the extent of military co-operation between Algeria, Mali and Nigeria? Will the South Africans provide any troops? With America increasingly looking to the Pacific, will European support for an African solution to this problem be enough without substantial American involvement?

Philip Hammond: I should tell the House that the United Kingdom has agreed to the use of US bases in the UK for the provision of refuelling support for the French forces, should the US choose to provide it. That is a decision for the US, but we would be comfortable with US aircraft operating from US bases in the UK for that purpose.
	Nigeria is committed to providing troops to support the mission in Mali. I do not believe that the Algerians are committed in the same way, but they have an interest in security on the Algerian-Malian border. As far as I am aware, there is no commitment from South Africa.

Jason McCartney: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that British forces are deployed on training missions not only in Africa but around the world? Will he also confirm whether the intelligence gathered by the Sentinel aircraft will be used in support of French offensive operations or just to safeguard our troops on their training mission?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that British military training missions are taking place in many countries around the world. British military training is highly sought after by many foreign Governments. It is one way in which we punch above our weight by having a degree of influence on foreign militaries and Governments that we might not otherwise have.
	The intelligence output from Sentinel will be deployed principally not for the protection of British forces on the ground, but to deliver intelligence to the French to increase their situational awareness of what is happening over these vast tracts of land.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an ethical foreign policy means one of muscular enlightenment, and that as a democracy we have a moral duty to intervene where possible to stop extremism and dictatorship, not just for the benefit of the world community, but for the people of individual countries?

Philip Hammond: I think that we have an absolute duty to intervene wherever there is a threat to Britain’s national security and the security of Britain’s interests around the world. This is exactly such a case. This is a well-judged, well-leveraged intervention that will deliver efficiently a result that is in Britain’s national interests.

Roger Williams: I am sure that everyone welcomes the fact that Malian and French troops entered Timbuktu without resistance, preventing further damage to its people and fabric. Nevertheless, the city is in desperate need of support to rebuild its medical and educational facilities and its local economy. Will the Secretary of State ensure that British training and advice are given to Malian and African troops on how best to work with agencies to provide them with security and safety so that they can carry out their work?

Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary is heavily engaged in activities in Mali. I suspect that many people in this country thought that Timbuktu was a mythical place until it
	popped up on their television screens three days ago. My hon. Friend talks about an urgent need to rebuild medical and educational facilities. This city has not been occupied by rebel forces for years; they were only there for a few days. However, he is right that there is an urgent need to provide development support to towns and cities in the north of Mali, where the level of economic development is very low. I know that that is a focus of my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary.

Point of Order

Robert Halfon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As chairman of the British-Brazil all-party parliamentary group, I tabled early-day motion 981 on the nightclub fire in Santa Maria, in which sadly at least 230 Brazilians lost their lives. Are we able, as a House, to send our condolences to the Brazilian Parliament and to open a book of condolences here?

Mr Speaker: I will certainly reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion. I accept the seriousness of the issue and the sincerity with which he has addressed it. I shall revert to him in due course.

Equality (Marriage) (Amendment)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Edward Leigh: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 to include a person’s conscientious beliefs about the definition of marriage; and for connected purposes.
	In my office, we call this the Adrian Smith Protection Bill, because it was his case that prompted me to table it. I will read an extract from the letter that Adrian Smith has written to Members of Parliament:
	“I’m the housing manager who was demoted and had my salary cut by 40 per cent, all because I said on my personal Facebook page that gay weddings in churches would be ‘an equality too far’. I wrote those four words using my own computer, outside work time, on a page that was not visible to the general public. Yet my bosses at work still saw fit to punish me.
	I tried reasoning with my bosses, but they dug their heels in. I was left with no option but to go to court to clear my name. It took the better part of two years, which was a living nightmare for my family and me. In November the High Court ruled in my favour. But they didn’t have the power to order my reinstatement so I was left in a demoted job which carried a lower salary. I have now found a job with a different employer. I shouldn’t have been treated like an outcast, and my family shouldn’t have had to suffer like they did.”
	I am introducing this Bill to protect people like Adrian Smith. His case cost him and the charity that supported him £30,000. He got £98 in damages. He was told by the lawyers who advised him that he would be unlikely to win his case for unfair dismissal because of recent rulings by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
	One of those rulings went against Lillian Ladele. She was told by the European Court of Human Rights that she had no right to have her view on marriage respected at work. She was dismissed by Islington borough council, even though the relevant part of her work could easily have been given to other employees. That ruling means that an employee who is ordered to go against their conscience on the issue of marriage has few, if any, legal rights to protect them. That is why we need an amendment to the Equality Act 2010.
	There is already a problem, but if the Government succeed in redefining marriage, the problem will get much worse. We are told that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is to be fast-tracked and that full scrutiny on the Floor of the House is not welcome. However, the Bill is not some obscure change in the law; it raises profound ethical, moral and, I would argue, constitutional matters that affect the Church of England. It also raises matters of conscience. We therefore need full scrutiny on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Opposition will press for that. I, for one, will support them if they do.
	I have this opportunity, a week before the Second Reading of that Bill, to put on the record the deep concern that exists about freedom of conscience. I believe that that right is as important as the protection of church weddings. The Government’s Bill does nothing to protect ordinary people’s conscientious views. Adrian
	Smith and Lillian Ladele can therefore be mistreated at work. They should be protected, but the Bill offers them no protection.
	Aidan O’Neill QC has produced a legal opinion that points out that NHS and Army chaplains may argue their case for traditional marriage in church on a Sunday, but could find themselves in trouble for articulating the same views in their workplace on Monday.
	Marriage charities that were set up to promote traditional marriage at a time when nobody dreamed that there was an alternative could find themselves shut down. Only this week, the last Catholic adoption agency, St Margaret’s in Glasgow, was ordered by the Scottish charity regulator to drop its policy of requiring prospective adopters to have been married for two years.
	According to a leak from the Department for Education, officials are worried that teachers will be in the firing line if marriage is redefined. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sports was pressed on that point by John Humphrys on the “Today” programme last week. She admitted that even in RE lessons in religious state schools, teachers would have to teach the subject in “a balanced way.” Many people in this country believe profoundly that traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, and they want the right to teach that in school.
	The Education Act 1996 requires schools to teach about the nature of marriage, so if marriage is redefined they will be required to teach about the nature of same-sex marriage. Teachers who decline will find themselves in the firing line in the same way as Lillian Ladele. Why should we put thousands of teachers at risk of dismissal for believing that marriage is between a man and a woman? Labour and the teaching unions will find themselves in a firestorm if they do not protect their members. Indeed, extant counsel’s opinion tells us that the courts are unlikely to rule in favour of parents who want their children excused from classes teaching same-sex marriage.
	This ten-minute rule Bill is not a blocking measure to stop same-sex marriage; it would simply insert in the Equality Act 2010 protection for a person’s conscientious views on the definition of marriage. It would protect those who hold the traditional view that marriage is between a man and a woman, just as it would protect those who hold a contrary view. People’s right to belief and conscientious right to freedom of expression must be protected. That does not mean that those conscientious views override all other considerations, but simply that conscientious beliefs about the definition of marriage are a protected characteristic that must be taken account of.
	I believe we must protect the right of conscience. For over a century, atheist teachers have been allowed to express their opinions and no one can force them to teach religion. Pro-life doctors cannot be forced to participate in abortions. During the second world war when we were in a life and death situation, we allowed the existence of conscientious objections. In 21st century Britain, however, woe betide anyone who refuses to declare full support for same-sex marriage in the workplace or the classroom.
	In my time in Parliament I have battled for freedom of speech—we had a great victory on section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986—and this is not a fringe concern.
	We go around the world—we have just heard a statement on Mali—investing blood and treasure to extend freedom, but let us not forget the freedom on our own doorstep. Some Members who support redefining marriage might be utterly convinced about the rightness of their cause. I respect their views, but surely they must be generous towards those who disagree. They should ensure that the law respects and does not trample over people’s deeply held beliefs.
	Millions of our fellow citizens believe passionately in marriage, and they believe their own marriage defines who they are. They do not want their marriages redefined over their heads by politicians. They believe that history, biology, ethics and religion all tell us that marriage is, uniquely, the coming together of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others. I believe that these people are entitled to protection not just in their churches but in their workplace, at home, on Facebook and when they teach in the classroom. They are entitled to talk about their beliefs on marriage—such beliefs are mainstream and sensible—and should do so without fear. If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those with whom we disagree passionately, I believe we have no passion for freedom of speech.

Stephen Doughty: I am grateful for the chance to respond to this motion with the greatest courtesy and respect for the hon. Gentleman’s sincerely and deeply held beliefs, but I regret that they appear to have motivated him erroneously to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I rise to oppose the motion as a fellow Christian who was baptised in the Church in Wales, confirmed in a Welsh Presbyterian chapel, and who now worships again within the Church in Wales.
	I have opposed over many years many of the things that the hon. Gentleman has said on theological and political matters, but I differ with him today through no ill will. In fact, I am conscious of the gifts and privileges that we are afforded to listen to views on either side of the debate in this House, and indeed outside the House when we listen to the views of our constituents and the many others who have written to me, and no doubt also to the hon. Gentleman.
	I differ with the hon. Gentleman on three principal areas. First, as many hon. Members will recall, the Equality Act 2010 already takes great care to provide protections for persons of religion and belief, despite significant scaremongering at the time, such as claims that we were going to lose Christmas and other such things. Those protections were placed on a principled equal footing with other protected characteristics, including those of sex and sexuality. As the Government Equalities Office made clear in guidance when the Bill was introduced:
	“In the case of Ministers of Religion and other jobs which exist to promote and represent religion, the Bill recognises that a church may need to impose requirements regarding sexual orientation, sex, marriage and civil partnership or gender reassignment if it is necessary to comply with its teachings or the strongly held beliefs of followers.”
	I believe the Act already provides safeguards against the scenarios envisaged by the hon. Gentleman, and that it does not need further clarification by Parliament.
	Secondly, by opening up debate on such a carefully considered piece of legislation in what is effectively a piecemeal way, we could essentially be undoing the work of a great deal of parliamentary debate that took place when we considered where to set the boundaries on “protected characteristics”, and how to balance appropriately the rights of one protected group alongside or against those of another. As I have said, great care and respect were provided to people of religion and belief, as well as to those without belief, to ensure that they could not be discriminated against on that basis, and appropriate exceptions were provided in relation to other protected characteristics to prevent malicious prosecutions—for example, trying to force a church or other religious institution to appoint a minister or priest not of its faith. I have worked for a Christian organisation protected by such provisions, to ensure that where there is a genuine occupational requirement to employ a practising Christian, that requirement is protected and respected.
	Thirdly, I fear that this motion is unfortunately a veiled attempt to prejudge and resolve a problem that, in my view, the Bill on equal marriage does not create. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, a motion such as this is not the best vehicle through which to pursue the views of this House on such important matters, given that next week we will have a clear opportunity to debate and discuss all implications of the proposed equal marriage legislation, not just one part in isolation which I am worried could merely distract the House.
	The hon. Gentleman and those who support his position will be entirely at liberty to pursue their concerns and lines of inquiry as part of their contribution to the Second Reading debate, or to probe the point by tabling amendments subsequently. I have no doubt that Ministers will be able to assure him that the problem he appears to be outlining will not be created by the Bill on equal marriage, and therefore does not need to be resolved by an unnecessary measure.
	The hon. Gentleman and I will no doubt find ourselves on fundamentally different sides of the debate next week. I for one do not believe that my faith, or any other, has a monopoly on the definition of marriage, and whatever it may have been historically, marriage is an institution that I believe now transcends belief, faith and religious conviction. As such, I hope marriage will be made open to all who wish to enter it, whether in the sight of their God, gods, or simply their closest friends and family.
	My Church currently does not permit same-sex marriage and will not be forced to do so under the proposed legislation. I will argue from within for it to change its mind, but it is fundamentally a decision for that Church and its decision-making procedures. Until such a time—if, indeed, it arrives at all—the proposed Bill will, I believe, protect those with different views to mine. The hon. Gentleman and those with similar views should have no fear: nothing in the proposed Bill constitutes an attack on them, their marriages, or those who cannot support same-sex marriage and would not enter into one owing to their own sincerely held beliefs. It is inaccurate to suggest that any religious denomination that does not want to celebrate such marriages might be forced to do so if a permissive, rather than mandatory, mechanism such as this Bill is introduced. The hon. Gentleman and
	others should rightly test and secure assurances on that if they so wish, but I believe there is no need for this motion.
	Finally, in proposing a Bill at this stage, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is no chance of it progressing through the relevant stages in this House and the other place before Prorogation, and no chance of making it on to the statute book. I emphasise again to hon. Members and colleagues that next week the House will have a chance to make its views clear on the entire issue, not just on one small part disassociated from the others. On that basis, although my views differ from those of the hon. Gentleman, I will not push the House to divide on this motion, and I hope other hon. Members will take the view that we should not distract from the full and free debate and that should vote on these issues next week. The House should now be allowed to move on to deal with the other important business before it today.
	Question put (Standing Order No.23).
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot raise a point of order during the Division. He can toddle up to the Chair and have a chat if he so wishes, and I have a feeling he will avail himself of that prerogative.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 86, Noes 31.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Edward Leigh, Jim Dobbin, Sir Gerald Howarth, Fiona Bruce, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Mr Julian Brazier, Mrs Mary Glindon, Mr David Davis, Jim Shannon, Mr Brian Binley, Mr Christopher Chope and Mr Andrew Turner present the Bill.
	Mr Edward Leigh accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March, and to be printed (Bill 128).

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 23 May 2012 (Electoral Registration and Administration Bill (Programme)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	2. The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	3. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 TABLE 
			 Lords Amendments Time for conclusions of proceedings 
			 Nos. 5 and 23 Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments. 
			 Nos. 7, 10, 11, 1 to 4, 6, 8, 9 and 12 to 22 Three hours after the commencement of those proceedings. 
		
	
	Subsequent stages
	4. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	5. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Swayne.)

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Mr. Speaker: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 5 and 23. If the House agrees to them, I will cause the appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
	After Clause 5

Amendment of Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment 23 and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Andrew Lansley: Lords amendments 5 and 23 on the boundary review were inserted into the Bill in the Lords, despite being outside the scope of the Bill. This was clearly done with the intention of preventing the implementation of the boundary review, which was agreed by this Parliament in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.
	The effect of Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu would be to provide for the boundary review to proceed and for the Boundary Commission’s recommendations to come into force, taking effect at the next general election, without a requirement for any further vote in either House of Parliament.
	I move this motion as Leader of the House in order to facilitate the debate. In the first instance, Members of this House will decide whether to disagree with the Lords in their amendment, the effect of which would be to put off the boundary review until 2018. If Members approve that motion, we would then go on to vote on whether instead the current boundary review should go ahead without further interference.

Michael Fabricant: May I say how disappointed I am that it is not the Deputy Prime Minister who is moving the motion? I will have to ask my right hon. Friend the question instead. Is he aware that in 2010 in this Chamber the Deputy Prime Minister made it very clear that the boundary review would be established on the simple principle of fairness, with all votes being of equal worth? Do the Lib Dems not do principle on the 29th of the month, or is just on Tuesdays?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes his point very well. I will come on to the substance of the issue, but if he will forgive me and the House will bear with me, I wish first to make certain that hon. Members understand the structure of the debate and what the implications of each vote might be.
	If the motion to disagree with the Lords in their amendment were agreed, we would go on to vote on the Government amendments in lieu, which would have the effect of proceeding with the boundary review without
	further votes in Parliament. If, however, hon. Members vote against the motion to disagree, the Lords amendments will be held to have been agreed with, and no further votes will take place on this group. There are therefore three potential outcomes: to agree with the Lords; to disagree and put the Bill back as it was when it left this House; or to settle the boundaries review issue now through the amendments in lieu.
	I should make it clear to the House that while as Leader of the House I am enabling the debate, I will also set out my view and that of my party. In doing so, I will not be setting out formally the view of the Government, as there is not a settled coalition view. Accordingly, and as happened in the Lords, collective ministerial responsibility has been set aside for this debate.

Peter Bone: I do not quite understand what the Leader of the House has said. On 6 September 2010, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill received its Second Reading, and the Deputy Prime Minister—Nick Clegg, as he is listed in Hansard—voted for it, and Mr Peter Bone voted against it. On Third Reading, on 20 November 2010, Mr Clegg again voted for it and Mr Bone voted against it. Surely it must be the settled view of the Government? It has gone through all its stages: how can it not be the settled view of the Government?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall very well that that Bill was the Government’s view and the Government’s policy, and the House agreed with that Government Bill. The issue is these Lords amendments, and as I told the House, the ministerial code explicitly allows for ministerial responsibility to be set aside in particular circumstances, and it has been set aside in relation to the debate and votes on this particular point.

Mark Reckless: Does the ministerial code not also say that Ministers must abide by the coalition agreement in the same way as they must abide by international law?

Andrew Lansley: No, I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not correct in that respect. The coalition agreement is clearly a relevant issue, but it is not encapsulated in the ministerial code. The code is very clear—he will no doubt be familiar with it—and makes clear the requirements for Ministers to accept the obligations of ministerial collective responsibility save when it is explicitly set aside. I am simply making it clear that collective ministerial responsibility has been set aside in relation to this debate and for these purposes.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend has answered questions about ministerial responsibility in front of a Select Committee. Can he tell us who set aside collective responsibility and, if it was the Prime Minister, why he did so?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister has responsibility for the ministerial code. Indeed, when ministerial collective responsibility is explicitly set aside, it is the Prime Minister who makes that decision. He is clearly doing it, as the House will understand, in the context of coalition government. As we know, that can give rise to occasions where there is not a collective view, and where by extension it is
	therefore not possible for a collective view to be the subject of collective ministerial responsibility. Let me turn to the substance of the issues.

Eleanor Laing: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Lansley: No; I will give way in a moment. Let me turn to the substance of the issues.
	Parliament agreed less than two years ago to a boundary review, and it did so for good reasons. There are major disparities in the size of constituencies. In England, East Ham has 92,000 voters; Wirral West has just 55,000. The differences are even greater in respect of other nations: Arfon in Wales has an electorate of just 41,000. This means that some votes count much more than others, and the principle of greater equality in the value of each vote is at the heart of this new boundary review. Votes should carry much more equal weight across the country in electing Members to this House and in deciding a future Government. If the current review were not to happen, in England the next general election would be based on the register of February 2000, with all the consequent disparities and in equalities which have been exacerbated since then. It would be 15 years out of date.

Jack Straw: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is being just a tad disingenuous in claiming—

Mr Speaker: Order. Although the list of proscribed words ceased to exist some time ago, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman is on somewhat dodgy ground in using that word. In view of his known dexterity in the use of language, I exhort him to deploy another term to make his point.

Jack Straw: I thought perhaps the word “tad” would ameliorate the effect. Would “dissembling”—

Mr Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accuse somebody of behaving disingenuously, it is small comfort for that person to be accused of behaving only a tad disingenuously.

Jack Straw: Is “dissembling” acceptable?

Hon. Members: No!

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not be held back for long.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you accept a motion that the right hon. Gentleman be no longer heard?

Mr Speaker: No.

Jack Straw: Would the Leader of the House accept that he has put only a part of his argument when he justifies the measure on the grounds of seeking equality of electorates? That principle is agreed across the Chamber. The objection to the 2011 Act was that it was a wholly partisan measure, breaking a clear convention that this
	kind of measure be agreed across the parties, to arbitrarily reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. That is the real reason.

Andrew Lansley: Well, Mr Speaker, that was a long time to be sitting down. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I am on occasions wrong, but I endeavour never to be disingenuous. On this occasion I am not wrong either. One could equally argue that it was a partisan effort on the part of the Opposition to frustrate the intention of the House to bring equality and fairness into the franchise when the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was passed. None the less, my point is simply that Parliament voted on that legislation, which has been enacted. That was done on the principle of equality and fairness and the Boundary Commission has proceeded on that basis. Not now proceeding with the review would leave all the inequalities in constituencies, between constituencies and between voters that go all the way back to February 2000.

Mark Reckless: My right hon. Friend says that he is not wrong, but he stated that the ministerial code contains no reference to the coalition agreement. Paragraph 1.2 states:
	“The Ministerial Code should be read alongside the Coalition agreement”.
	If that is the case, why is the Deputy Prime Minister being allowed to break it?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend has the advantage of me, but the ministerial code explicitly states the circumstances in which ministerial collective responsibility can be set aside. That is for the Prime Minister to decide, notwithstanding either the coalition agreement or the ministerial code.
	Returning to the review, Members of this House must be aware that not only is the principle of equality and fairness relevant, but the review will have the effect of bringing down the number of Members here from 650 to 600, cutting the cost of politics by £13.5 million a year. As we are cutting back on administration and costs across the whole of the public services, it is only right that we apply the same principles to ourselves.

Chris Ruane: On inequality, how equal is it to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and increase the number of Members of the House of Lords by an extra 125 since 2010? Where is the equity in that?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members know perfectly well that if they had supported a programme motion on House of Lords reform, we would have been able to reform the House of Lords and reduce the number of Members in the Lords. But no, they did not do that.

Chris Bryant: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Andrew Lansley: I always regret it, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Bryant: So charmingly done. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to cut the cost of politics, yet the average cost of a completely unelected new peer is £150,000 a year. How many extra peers will he be appointing before the next general election? We have already seen the fastest appointment of peers of any Government in history.

Andrew Lansley: We always made it clear on the Government Benches that if the House of Lords remained unreformed it would be necessary to enable it to better reflect the character of the outcome of the preceding general election. I will not reiterate the point I made to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), but if the Opposition had supported House of Lords reform we would have been able to deal with that.

Kevan Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Lansley: No, I am going to make more progress—this is only a two-hour debate.
	I am asking the House to maintain the boundary review. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) reminded us earlier, it was my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister who said, quite rightly, on Third Reading of the Bill that became the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011:
	“Fairness demands constituencies that are basically equal in size…there can be no justification for maintaining the current inequality between constituencies and voters across the country.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 864.]
	I have heard no argument that changes that, nor any justification from the Lords to seek to do so.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank the Leader of the House for giving way. He rightly emphasises that the coalition agreement is an important document, but could he also remind the House that manifestos are important, and will he inform us all of the Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge on reducing the number of MPs?

Andrew Lansley: Again, my hon. Friend has the advantage of me, as I do not have the Liberal Democrat manifesto to hand. I will say from the Dispatch Box that the coalition agreement is important and that it set out our shared objective to introduce a Bill that included provision for the introduction of the alternative vote in the event of a positive result in a referendum—there was not such a positive result—as well as the creation of fewer and more equal-sized constituencies. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 is therefore entirely part of the commitment made in the coalition agreement.

James Duddridge: When I entered the House, a colleague advised me to carry in my top pocket a couple of good jokes for speeches. I will read one from the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto, which sadly my right hon. Friend does not have to hand. It is quite clear:
	“we will be able to reduce the number of MPs by 150”—
	full stop, end of quote. Why then are they not doing it? This would have been a good first step.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. If I may, I put it to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches that they might like to explain their reasoning to my hon. Friend later in this debate.

Eleanor Laing: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I hope it may be helpful to him and the House to know that his colleague the Deputy Prime Minister gave evidence to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform on 19 April and 13 December last year, and I asked him the exact questions that Members have been asking in the last few minutes. He made it clear to the Committee that he still agreed with what he said at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading: that we have to put right what he called
	“the broken scales of our democracy”—[Official Report, 6 December 2010; Vol. 515, c. 36.]
	However, he also made it clear that although he considers the current system to be unfair, he is absolutely certain that that unfairness should continue until after the next general election. That is his position.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure the House is grateful to my hon. Friend for informing it about the discussions in the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. From my point of view, I know the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to constitutional reform. I think the boundaries review and the introduction of greater equality and fairness in constituencies and between voters is an important constitutional reform, and I hope he would want to see it put through before the next election.

Henry Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Lansley: I will carry on for a moment, if I may.
	Some argue that the boundaries review may spend further money this year and then not be approved—that argument was adduced in the Lords. One might equally say that several millions have been spent and the process should be completed. Either way, the amendments in lieu, if passed today, would settle that question. They would bring the review into effect without any further political interference, which, given the independent character of the review, has merit in any case.

Toby Perkins: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Andrew Lansley: I will, and then I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith).

Toby Perkins: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. It is undoubtedly true that the question could be settled one way or another today. However, given that the Liberal Democrats are clear that they will not support him, is not the most sensible thing for the House to finish this and not waste any more money on it, rather than continue with the process when it has already been made clear that what was a very political initial manoeuvre is now doomed to fail?

Andrew Lansley: I am rather disappointed that the hon. Gentleman thinks that my modest rhetoric might have no impact on my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat
	Benches. Surely that is the whole point of this debate and, in particular, of my colleagues and I tabling the amendments in lieu—precisely because it would be in the interests of this House to settle the matter today. It would be in the interests of this House, not least in its relationship with their lordships, to say, “We have settled it today. The boundaries review should be completed, as we legislated for it to happen, and there should be no more interference by either House, for any reason or any party.” There is an independent review; it should be completed. Before we come to the amendments in lieu, however, we first have to decide whether the Lords were right to amend the Bill as they did.

James Duddridge: rose—

Andrew Lansley: Let me make this point, if I may. Let me put it plainly: I believe that what was done in the Lords was an abuse of the parliamentary process. We sent them a Bill concerning electoral registration; they inserted a provision outside the scope of the Bill. This is the first time that that has been done, and it was done contrary to the advice of their Clerks, who ruled that the amendment was not relevant to the Bill. It is also significant to note that the Cross Benchers in the Lords voted by two to one against inserting the boundaries amendment.

Steven Baker: I am not in the least surprised that the forces of reaction still come from the other place, but does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment that now the forces of reaction are the party opposite and the party below the Aisle, on the Liberal Democrat Benches?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, my hon. Friend makes an important point. I might say that the argument was put to the Members of the other House that in agreeing such an amendment, the Lords are seeking directly and dramatically to intervene in the structure of elections to this House. As my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde told peers in another place:
	“How odd it would be if this unelected House…should have the temerity to tell the elected House how to proceed on its…election”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 November 2010; Vol. 722, c. 568.]
	How often did Opposition Members complain when they were in government if the unelected House sought to overrule the elected House? Let them contemplate this: how much stronger is that complaint, which I heard them make, when the view of this House is overruled in relation to the franchise to this House?

Pete Wishart: May I remind the Leader of the House that those of us on the SNP Benches were never in government? He will have no comfort from the Scottish National party. We will be voting against the Government’s proposals, even though the new boundaries would be to our advantage. Can he explain why the Conservatives are selecting candidates on the current boundaries, not the new boundaries?

Andrew Lansley: I am very disappointed in what the hon. Gentleman says, because I would hope that Members of this House would attach immense weight to the primacy of this House in determining the franchise for this
	House and reject a move by the unelected House to seek to interfere with the previously settled will of this House.

Andrea Leadsom: Although Members in the other House might not care what voters think, because they do not have to face them, surely other colleagues in this House must care that all their electors would like the cost of Parliament reduced and for all votes to count as much as each other.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point well. Anybody who votes to agree with the Lords or not to disagree with them on this amendment will, I fear, have to explain to their electorate why they are not reducing the cost of politics when we are asking the public services generally to do that.
	In what is colloquially known as the Hart-Rennard amendment we have not only an abuse of parliamentary process, but a democratic travesty. The unelected House is seeking to frustrate the precisely expressed will of this Parliament—not a previous Parliament—to deny fairness and equality in the franchise and fundamentally to manipulate the basis on which this House is to be elected.

Kevan Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why this Government have appointed 125 new peers since 2010? Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, the average cost is £130,000 a year, which adds an extra £16,250,000 a year to the cost of politics, or £81,250,000 over five years.

Andrew Lansley: Leaving aside the fact that some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes were from the resignation honours back in 2010, I would say that he heard what I said about House of Lords reform. If he and his colleagues had supported the programme motion, we would be in a completely different place in the House of Lords.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: There is limited for this debate and I need to conclude my speech.
	I urge Members to recognise that democrats in all parts of this House should reject the Lords amendment. Even those who object to the boundaries reviews, whether for party, personal or other reasons, should reject the way in which the Lords have amended the Bill. In doing so, they would still have the option of voting for or against the review, in the subsequent vote on the amendment in lieu or, if it is rejected, in October when the boundaries reports come before the House for approval.

Jesse Norman: rose—

Paul Uppal: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I will give way finally to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and then my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal).

Jesse Norman: I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. I can only sympathise with his travails over the abuse of powers on this issue by the House of Lords. Can he imagine how much worse it would have been if the House of Lords had been elected?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is inviting me to engage with a series of hypothetical situations. I will resist the temptation.
	All four boundary commissions have completed their consultations and are finalising—

Jack Straw: rose—

Karl Turner: Give way!

Andrew Lansley: I will, but I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman before and it took about five minutes.

Jack Straw: Could the Leader of the House now answer the clear question put by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart): why is the Conservative party selecting candidates on the existing boundaries, not those in the new Act?

Andrew Lansley: As Leader of the House, I am answering for my party and for the Government—[Interruption.] My party will live very happily with the outcome of the boundary commissions’ review, I can tell you that. The boundary commissions are finalising their recommendations. They are doing that because this Parliament voted for that measure. This concerns a fundamental feature of our democracy—namely, the basis on which we are elected to this House.

Paul Uppal: On that point of principle about the democratic deficit, is there not an irony in the fact that Labour and Liberal Democrat Members are often inspired by the Chartists, who voted for equal-sized constituencies? There is a perverse relationship today, in that those Members are going to go through the Lobby and vote to retain the disconnect and the democratic deficit.

Andrew Lansley: I was right to give way to my hon. Friend; he has made a good point. That votes should be of equal value is a fundamental principle that we should seek. We voted for that in legislation earlier in this Parliament, and it is now our task to see it through. This must be fair, equitable and democratic. It is wholly wrong that these measures should be overturned by an unprecedented device in the other House. I therefore ask Members across the House to disagree with the Lords. Having done that, we can go on to decide whether positively to settle the boundaries today by voting for the amendment in lieu or to let the proposal come back as planned on the basis of the boundary commissions’ reports later this year. In the interests of democracy and equality, I urge the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendment.

Sadiq Khan: May I first congratulate—

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman’s thirst might have been quenched, but the truth, as we all know, is that he is unquenchable.

Michael Fabricant: I shall take that as a compliment, Mr Speaker. You will know that I am very naive about what goes on on the Back Benches, as it has been a long time since I was last here—apart from the past two weeks, of course. I have been asking questions of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the views expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister, who, sadly, cannot be here today. Do you have the power to call the Deputy Prime Minister to the House to explain why it is suddenly no longer a point of principle for him to vote for a measure that he voted for only a couple of years ago? Perhaps you could explain that to me, Mr Speaker. I am curious.

Mr Speaker: No, I do not; no, I could not; and no, it would not be right for the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is a decent fellow, to seek to embroil me in partisan politics. That would be unworthy of him, and I feel sure that he would not knowingly behave in an unworthy way.

Sadiq Khan: May I begin by congratulating the Leader of the House on the sheer audacity of his speech? His criticism of the House of Lords is breathtaking. Only six months ago, he and his party were saying that—I paraphrase—the House of Lords was so perfect that it did not need any reform, yet here he is today, arguing that it is so inept and incompetent that it cannot be trusted with this issue, despite all the Lords’ experience and the impartiality that the Conservatives claim comes from being unelected. You really could not make it up.

Peter Bone: I am not quite following the shadow Minister. Is he not aware that the biggest majority for any Government Bill in this Parliament was achieved on Second Reading of the House of Lords Reform Bill?

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Leader of the House is in charge of the timetabling of legislation in Parliament, and that it is for the Government to decide whether to proceed with a Bill. The Government chose to abandon that Bill, not the Opposition. The chairman of the Conservative party has now left the Chamber, but I have never known him to be a scholar of political and constitutional matters. We know why he was here. It is his job to ensure that the largest possible number of Conservative MPs are returned at next general election. That is why he was here, taking an interest in this matter. It was not because he is interested in political and constitutional reform or because he is trying to reduce the cost of politics.
	The House of Lords is a self-regulating Chamber. The Clerk’s advice on the admissibility or otherwise of an amendment is non-binding. By voting in favour of the amendment, the Lords have made clear their view that it is within the scope of the Bill. I am afraid it is hard luck if the Conservative part of this Government does not like that. When it comes to House of Lords reform during this Parliament, the ship has sailed.
	Before us today are two groups of amendments made in the other place to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. I want to put on record our recognition
	of the work done by colleagues in the other place, from all parties and none, who spent four days debating, revising and improving the Bill.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Is not the relationship between the two Houses based on convention? Every so often, the House of Lords breaches a convention, one of which is that we should have primacy in our own affairs and should therefore decide how elections should be carried out and how boundaries should be determined. It was a breach of convention over the 1909 Budget that led to the Lords having their powers curbed before. This is a much more serious constitutional issue than the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, because he sat through my superb speech during the debate on the House of Lords Reform Bill, that I made a point in that debate about the importance of function, of looking at the powers of the second Chamber and of convention. He will recall that, although the Second Reading was voted for by a huge majority, it was the Government who chose to drop the Bill from the legislative timetable. That was their decision, and it is the Government whom the hon. Gentleman should be lobbying.

Chris Bryant: Is it not a generally accepted principle that the House of Lords has a special relationship in that it is a guardian of the constitution in a way that those who are elected might sometimes not be?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. I have to say to those who have a grievance against conventions or against House of Lords reform that I am afraid the ship has sailed. They had their opportunity, but it passed them by.
	The amendments have been made in addition to the improvements made here in the Commons during the progress of the Bill. We managed to secure a commitment that an annual canvass would still take place in 2014, that the option of a rolling opt-out was removed and that a civil penalty would be created for those who refused to respond when requested to register to vote. The Bill still left this House with serious problems, however, which is why we voted against it on Third Reading when it was last before us.
	I would like to use this opportunity to place on record our appreciation of those who tabled the amendments in group 2: Lord Hart of Chilton, Lord Rennard, Lord Wigley and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. This amendment received support from across the other place, and a Labour peer, a Liberal Democrat peer, a Plaid Cymru peer and a Cross Bencher tabled it. It was passed by a majority of 69. We welcome the amendments made to the Bill in the other place. We shall not, therefore, be supporting the motion before us today to disagree with the Lords in their amendments.
	The effect of the amendment we are debating will be to postpone the review of parliamentary boundaries by one electoral cycle.

Stewart Jackson: Let us focus on the practical ramifications of the right hon. Gentleman’s vote today. Is he really prepared to tell his constituents in Tooting that it is appropriate, fair and equitable that, by the time of the general election after
	next, in May 2020, the enumeration data on which the electorates are based will be 20 years old? Some of the constituencies in my county of Cambridgeshire are the fastest growing in England, and they will have well over 100,000 electors by then, while some in Wales will have fewer than 40,000.

Sadiq Khan: It is a bit rich for a Conservative Member to lecture us on equality and fairness. I will come to those issues later in my speech.
	The amendment will also similarly delay the reduction in the number of MPs by 50 to 600, as a result of which the next general election will take place on the current boundaries with the number of MPs at 650.

Paul Farrelly: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not about having fairer constituencies—that can be accomplished by a periodic redistribution—nor about saving money? It is a highly political Bill aimed at the Labour party and at the Liberal Democrats who were naive to support it in the first place.

Sadiq Khan: The House has heard what my hon. Friend has said.
	Should the amendment be supported, it would mean having more time to address the deficiencies in the current electoral register, particularly against the backdrop of the move towards individual electoral registration. The reason why that is so important is that the electoral register is the very basis on which boundaries are drawn and redrawn. It is the raw material from which the Boundary Commission constructs parliamentary constituencies. If that raw material is of poor quality, the subsequent output from the Boundary Commission will also be of questionable quality.
	It is not necessary to take just my word for it or that of the House of Lords. The Electoral Reform Society said last year:
	“A depleted register has major implications for political boundaries. A substantial fall off in registered voters, weighted towards urban areas, would require the Boundary Commission to reduce the number of inner-city seats. This will create thousands of ‘invisible’ citizens who will not be accounted for or considered in many key decisions that affect their lives, yet will still look to MPs to serve them as local constituents.”

Mark Tami: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need only look at what happened in Northern Ireland to see some of the dramatic effects and the drop in the number of those registered?

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the lessons we can learn from Northern Ireland. A recent report by the Electoral Commission recorded its concern about the record drop in the number of people on the register.

Chris Ruane: A few moments ago, my right hon. Friend said that thousands of people will be missing from the register. The true figure is that there are 6.5 million people missing from it—and these are often among the most marginalised people in the country.
	I believe that it is wrong to go ahead with the boundary review without having secured these missing millions back on the register.

Sadiq Khan: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very good point.
	The Lords amendment has two main principles, the first of which concerns the shift to individual electoral registration. We need time to allow for the switch to the new system to bed down.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sadiq Khan: I need to make some progress but will give way later.
	We need to be sure that the completeness and accuracy of the register has not been damaged by the move. As has been said, the Electoral Commission estimates that about 6.5 million eligible voters are currently missing from the register—a truly startling figure. That is enough for almost 90 parliamentary constituencies. The current situation in which we find ourselves is bad enough; it should be imperative on us to do all we can to rectify it.

Oliver Colvile: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if he is successful today, he will be recreating rotten boroughs, which were got rid of in the 1830s?

Sadiq Khan: I think that the Electoral Commission, the Boundary Commission and electoral registration officers will be quite offended by the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I am sure that, on reflection, he will want to withdraw those remarks.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Bill has nothing to do with fairness, saving money or the cost of democracy, but is actually about pure party political advantage for the Conservative party? Is it not straight out of the Karl Rove book of how to rig elections to the advantage of a sitting party?

Sadiq Khan: We have seen that the general election co-ordinator for the Conservative party has left the Chamber. The fact that he was in his place earlier speaks volumes about the motives of the Conservative part of the Government.
	The move to individual electoral registration risks even greater numbers falling off the register.

Nigel Dodds: The right hon. Gentleman will know that on the Northern Ireland Benches, we are concerned about the maximum representation for Northern Ireland in this House. As well as that, however, there is the issue of the impact, not mentioned so far, on elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, because reductions in seats for Northern Ireland here also impact on the representation in that Assembly. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is an important aspect, which has not so far been properly addressed?

Sadiq Khan: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Northern Ireland not only loses 17% of MPs to the Westminster Parliament, but the consequences
	for the Northern Ireland Assembly are very serious, too. Supporting this amendment would give us the time—another electoral cycle—to get it right, which is why right hon. and hon. Members of all parties should support it.

Harriett Baldwin: I am really struggling to follow the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. He is arguing that he would forfeit at least £70 million-worth of savings to the taxpayer by delaying this matter for five years, while also arguing that it is right to fight the 2015 general election on constituencies that have not been looked at since 2000—15 years out of date.

Sadiq Khan: I can reassure the hon. Lady that I am just warming up. If, during the course of my speech, I have not addressed the points she raises, she can intervene again later, once I am in full flow.

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make a link between the electoral register and the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill and the boundaries review—but that is a completely false connection. The 2015 election will be based on a register in its current form, not on individual electoral registration, either way—whether done through the boundaries review as planned or whether done without it. The Bill does not impact on that.

Sadiq Khan: The Leader of the House must be a fantastic poker player, as he said that with a straight face. I will give him a mini-lecture on why he is so wrong, on this issue as well, in a few moments. If he is still not persuaded, he can intervene and explain it to me again.
	I have explained why we have sought to amend the Bill—both in this Chamber and in the other place—to include further mechanisms for maximising voter registration, particularly for the harder-to-reach sections of our communities. The importance of doing all in our power to avoid a sharp drop-off in registration levels was brought home by the experience of Northern Ireland, recently re-emphasised in the Electoral Commission report.
	We know that those most likely to fall off the register are not sprinkled uniformly across the country. Each constituency does not have its equal share of missing voters. Instead, it is generally accepted that the missing eligible voters are likely to be from black, Asian and ethnic minority communities, the more transient residents who live in rented accommodation such as students and young people, the elderly and the disabled and those in more deprived communities. The Leader of the House and his Back-Benchers talked about equality and fairness, but the Electoral Commission has reported that
	“under-registration is notably higher than average among 17-24 year olds (56% not registered), private sector tenants (49%) and black and minority ethnic British residents (31%)”.
	It also found that
	“the highest concentrations of under-registration are most likely to be found in metropolitan areas, smaller towns and cities with large student populations, and coastal areas with significant population turnover and high levels of social deprivation.”
	These millions missing from the register would not count in the calculations for the setting of parliamentary
	boundaries. Any boundaries produced would be skewed and would be open to questions about their legitimacy. That should worry us all.

Chloe Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman think those people were on the register in 2000?

Sadiq Khan: Let us follow the logic of the hon. Lady’s argument: there are 6 million people missing from the register at the moment, but if we cannot ensure that we get them back on the register and stop further falls, we should be happy with the status quo. She is wrong: we should not be happy with the status quo; we should try to get these 6 million people on to the register and stop the cliff fall.
	We should also bear it in mind that we are losing seven constituencies in Scotland, three in Northern Ireland and 10 in Wales. Although the latest census confirms that our population has risen, there will be fewer Members representing constituencies which will, as a result of inaccuracy, have fewer people on the electoral roll. That raises real concerns about whether the interests of all four of our nations will be properly protected by the Westminster Parliament.

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sadiq Khan: I will, but then I must make progress.

Pete Wishart: The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that Scotland will lose seven constituencies if the boundary review goes ahead. We will be supporting the amendment, not because we feel that its proponents have a great case but because it would end the prospect of further Conservative government in Scotland. However, given the current boundaries, will the Labour party not have a start of up to 30 seats at the next general election?

Sadiq Khan: I am always happy to discuss voting systems. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing for proportional representation rather than first past the post, that is a debate that we can have—although not, I hasten to add, during the short time that remains to us today.

Toby Perkins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, but then I must make progress.

Toby Perkins: My right hon. Friend’s point about the number of people who are not on the electoral register is one of the most fundamental in the debate. If Government Members had given us some sense that they were taking the position seriously—if they had paid attention to some of the reasoned amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—it would have been much easier for us to take them seriously today.

Sadiq Khan: The Government’s complacency on the subject of the missing 6.5 million is breathtaking, and we should see it in a wider context as well. At the same time as the size of the elected legislature is being reduced through the cutting of 50 MPs, the number of unelected peers is increasing by about 50 a year. Since 2010, 117 new peers have been created at a cost of £18 million a year. The amount that will be saved by the cutting of
	those 50 MPs is £13.6 million. We understand from No. 10 briefings—and the Leader of the House has confirmed today—that the creation of more peers will be announced shortly.
	However, it is not just the cost that should worry us. The Government are becoming more powerful. We have more Government special advisers that at any time in our history. Moreover, these changes will reduce the size of the legislature while leaving the Executive untouched, thus making Governments more powerful at the expense of elected MPs representing their constituents. Accepting the Lords amendment would enable the reduction in the number of MPs to be delayed, which would have the added advantage of giving us time to consider the right balance between Executive and legislature.

Sarah Wollaston: rose—

Sadiq Khan: I will give way to the hon. Lady, who has been very patient and has risen several times.

Sarah Wollaston: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned students. Does he think it reasonable that the MP who represents a student in, say, Bristol West represents more than 82,000 people, while just across the road in Bristol East the MP represents 13,000 fewer? It is not necessary to be a student of maths to realise that a vote there will carry far less weight. That cannot be right; it goes against all the basic Chartist principles that we would expect the right hon. Gentleman to support.

Sadiq Khan: I agree with the hon. Lady, as do the Electoral Reform Society and the Electoral Commission. She should join me in ensuring that those invisible citizens who should be on the register are put on the register. Let us not rush ahead with partisan boundary changes.

Eleanor Laing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sadiq Khan: I have been very generous, as the hon. Lady knows. I will make some progress, and if I have time after that, I will give way.
	Labour legislated for individual electoral registration in 2009. The timetable and safeguards that we proposed at the time received cross-party support, but there was a general recognition that risks would be involved in the transition, which is why it was spread over a number of years. However, the Bill in its unamended form has watered down some of the safeguards that we introduced, thus failing to take account of risks that could mean the loss of millions of eligible voters from the register.
	The complexities of the move are enormous. It involves the carry-over of existing registered voters for periods of the transition, the simultaneous piloting of data-matching schemes, a drive to show the public how to register, and changes in the way in which local authorities seek to register voters and how they should deal with a refusal to co-operate. As the Government themselves admit,
	“Individual Electoral Registration (IER) is the biggest change to our system of electoral registration for almost a century and it is essential we get it right”.

Chris Ruane: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sadiq Khan: I want to make some progress first.
	I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. “Getting it right” means that we must allow sufficient time to check that the transition does not result in millions of eligible voters dropping off the register, and rectifying that if it does occur.

Chris Ruane: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sadiq Khan: I want to make some progress. I have only a short time left.
	The second principal purpose of the amendments is to deal with the uncertainty about the boundaries on which the next election will be fought. That uncertainty has left the process of redrawing boundaries on the basis of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 in a state of limbo. The current boundary review is wasting public resources, and risks creating a degree of confusion in the minds of voters about which constituencies they live in and who their MPs are.
	I will not rehearse the statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister last August about the proposals for boundary changes, but, needless to say, he has made it clear that his party will not now support the new boundaries, on which both Houses are due to vote in the autumn. Rather than our having to wait until the autumn, however, the amendment gives us an opportunity to bring an end to all remaining elements of uncertainty about this issue, as well as improving the move to individual electoral registration. We do not want voters not to know which constituencies they live in, or to be confused about whether those constituencies will change at the next election.

Chris Ruane: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sadiq Khan: I will, for the very last time.

Chris Ruane: Currently, 6.5 million people are missing from the register. According to the Electoral Commission, if the IER arrangements had gone ahead as originally proposed by the Government, the number of unregistered voters could have risen to 16 million—16 million of the poorest people. Is that the way to run a democracy?

Sadiq Khan: One would think that rather than heckling in a snide and partisan manner, Ministers would be expressing concern about the millions of invisible citizens who are missing from the register.
	The next general election is nearer than the last. We want the public to have more certainty about the constituencies in which they live and about who will be the candidates in the election, but if the amendment is rejected, they will know neither of those things until 2014. If we are to reinforce the connections between MPs, candidates and their constituents, we need to know the facts sooner rather than later. We need an end to the impasse, and that is what voting for the amendment would provide. Ending the impasse would bring clarity and certainty. It would also halt the work of the Boundary Commission, which would save significant amounts of money that might otherwise be wasted on a review that will not be implemented.
	Agreeing with the amendment would allow us to monitor, check and rectify any deficiencies that emerge from the transition to individual voter registration.
	In the event of a dramatic slump in the number of eligible voters on the register, it would allow time for that to be corrected without a severe undermining of the legitimacy of parliamentary boundaries redrawn on the basis of a depleted electoral register. It would allow the next general election to be fought on the current boundaries, and would allow us to engage and register the missing millions in the meantime. It would prevent the wasting of any further money by the Boundary Commission, and it would bring certainty. That is why we will not be supporting the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment, and I hope that Members in all parts of the House will join us.

John Thurso: I rise to ask the House to agree with their lordships in the amendment, and to disagree with the motion to disagree. Let me, however, begin on a note of agreement with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It is important for us to deal with this matter, and to deal with it today. It is before us now, so let us deal with it.
	I want to touch briefly on what I consider to be the three main questions that confront us: the admissibility of the amendment, the substantive issues surrounding it, and what I might euphemistically refer to as the wider issues for the coalition.
	Let me start with the question of admissibility. The other place is self-regulating; it is completely different from this House in that regard. Because it is self-regulating, all matters of order reside with the House collectively, not with any individual. The Clerks give advice, and it is given on the understanding, and in the belief, that it will be accepted. That is the convention, but it is a convention, not a rule. The rule is that anything their lordships decide collectively is in order. As they have so decided, that settles the matter as far as order is concerned. If anyone wants to revisit the debate, however, may I suggest they look in particular at the remarks of two Cross Benchers, both of whom served this House well as Speaker? They made very plain their reasons for voting for this amendment.

Peter Bone: Can my hon. Friend tell us the last time the Lords did not take the advice of the Clerks?

John Thurso: I am sorry, but, as a matter of fact, I cannot. All sorts of things have happened in their lordships’ House, however, and I can tell Members the last time that the asperity of speech motion was moved. I was there when the late great Lord Conrad Russell moved it, and I do not think it had been moved for 300 years before that.

James Duddridge: I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about procedure and the House of Lords. Will he add to his list of three things he is going to cover an explanation of why he and the Deputy Prime Minister have changed their view? On 1 November 2010 the hon. Gentleman said in respect of a Government Bill on equalisation that
	“I have absolutely no problem with that general principle…the principle of equalisation is a very good one.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 672.]

John Thurso: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention, and I will address that point later. I reiterate that I stand by the words he quotes about my having no problem with the general principle. I have put on record on many occasions how that general principle should be dealt with, however, and I will cover that point later.

Greg Mulholland: I do not think any Member disagrees with the principle of having more equal seats, but several amendments were not accepted that would have made the rules governing this proposal sensible, many of them tabled by Government Members. If they had been accepted, we might not find ourselves in this position now.

John Thurso: My hon. Friend makes a good point.

Peter Bottomley: In the 1950s Jo Grimond said in my hearing that one of the roles of the House of Lords was to stop the House of Commons abusing the electoral process. I think that to carry on having boundaries that are old and constituencies with unequal numbers of voters is just such an abuse. What would Jo Grimond say about what is happening now?

John Thurso: I had the great privilege of listening to Jo Grimond on many occasions. He met his wife in my grandparents’ house and proposed to her there—and, indeed, Laura was godmother to my sister. I regularly listen to him, therefore, and I feel certain that if he was in the circumstances we are in, he would without doubt support his Liberal colleagues. [Interruption.] One has some small advantages in life.
	Their lordships’ Amendment 5 delays the implementation of the boundary changes until the next Parliament. There are three good reasons why this should happen, two of which have been touched on and featured in the debate in their lordships’ House, and the third I shall add. The first point is in regard to the quality of the register. Since the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill was enacted, much work has been done on that register. At the time, the best evidence was that it contained the details of about 92% of those who should be on it. As a result of work carried out by the Electoral Commission, we now know the figure is much lower, however; it is, in fact, 82%. To my mind, that is a material difference that should be addressed. We should be asked to look at that again.

Paul Uppal: In a genuine effort to be non-partisan, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to give his opinion on the fact that the Cross Benchers in the House of Lords overwhelmingly voted against these amendments?

John Thurso: I disagree with that. I went through the Lords Hansard and underlined the names of all the Cross Benchers I could see in each of the voting lists. There were slightly more of them in one list than the other, but there were quite a number in support of this amendment. I remember that one of the great dictums of their lordships’ House is that all peers are equal, so I would look to the result, which was 300 on one side and 69 or so less—231—on the other side.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian, so he will know that it has hitherto been the practice of the other place not to
	amend secondary legislation substantially—or, indeed, at all—even on some very contentious subjects and Bills over the past few Parliaments. Why, therefore, has this happened on this particular occasion?

John Thurso: I recall very well that, when I and others were given their P45s and left that place, one of the discussions that we had was about why on earth we in the other place should not register dissent on secondary legislation. Indeed, that has occasionally happened, which serves to demonstrate that there is a changing dynamic. Because of that changing dynamic, we need to look at the constitutional arrangements in the round, and that topic will form the substantive element of the last part of my argument.

Andrew Stephenson: In the other place, by convention their lordships defer to what the Clerks say. Over the past 20 years, on the five occasions when amendments have been deemed inadmissible by the Clerks, they have deferred to the Clerks’ superior knowledge. In this House, such an amendment would be deemed to be outside the rules and we rightly follow the rules set out in “Erskine May”. Does my hon. Friend think we in this place should continue to follow those rules, or should we throw “Erskine May” in the bin?

John Thurso: My hon. Friend is asking me to ponder questions that go slightly above my pay grade, because one person alone can make those decisions in this House: Mr Speaker. It is entirely up to Mr Speaker to accept or reject the advice given. I therefore refer my hon. Friend to the remarks made by Baroness Boothroyd, a former Speaker of this House. She said there were occasions when she had gone against the advice given to her by the Clerks. We do not know when that happens, however, for the simple reason that that is the prerogative of the Speaker, and we accept it without question.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my noble Friend for giving way. At the Committee stage of any Bill, it is up to this House to give an instruction to consider any amendments, whether or not they have been deemed by the Clerks to be in the scope of the Bill, so this House has much the same powers as the House of Lords in this respect.

John Thurso: I am always deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me out on these occasions.
	My first point is about the electoral register. The second point is about what has happened in regard to boundaries. We now have the benefit of the proposals that have been made. At the time of our original discussion, we did not; we were looking at the question in theory. A fascinating point arose from a discussion I had with a senior member of the Government on the other side of the coalition. I will not name the Member as it would be invidious to do so. [Hon. Members: “Go on.”] Absolutely not; my lips are sealed. He said that in a given area the proposal their experts had come up with was the one thing that had never been thought of. That is precisely what has happened in respect of my own seat. The proposed size of it gives me concern, as it would become the largest. However, in electoral terms—notionally, on the basis of the historical numbers—the change would
	increase my majority, although one would never boast about that in any highland seat. My constituency would go from being made up of two and a quarter counties to comprising two counties, 90% of another county and a little chunk of a fourth, none of which are linked together in any way, shape or form; none of this has any rationale of community. These areas have different local election arrangements; the seat goes through wards. The proposed seat goes all over the place, simply to squeeze enough both in respect of the area and the numbers.
	The general principle, I always agreed, has to be tailored to the other principles we have always used when setting out boundaries: the big regional variances. So I feel it is a good idea to look again at what has been proposed, now that we have seen that the actual proposals are quite different from those envisaged, in theory, at the time.

Christopher Pincher: But my hon. Friend must have thought about this when his own leader made a statement on political and constitutional reform in this House and said that the changes we are proposing will
	“bring our oversized House of Commons into line with legislatures across the world.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 24.]
	In other words, the changes will make the House of Commons smaller. Have legislatures around the world become bigger or has the Deputy Prime Minister, whom we both regard with affection, become a little smaller?

John Thurso: Let me deal with that precise point at the moment I arrive at it. First, I wish to deal with my third point of substance, which is the one that was not made in the debate. It is brief but it is important. A reduction in the size of this House increases the percentage of the payroll vote and thereby strengthens the grip of the Executive on Parliament, without there being an acceptable counterweight.
	That leads me to my final point, which relates to the wider coalition issues. Let me make it absolutely clear that I supported the formation of this Government and I remain committed to them. As a Liberal Democrat, I entered this coalition because I believed in 2010 that the country needed a stable Government to deal with the financial crisis that was before us. As a member of the Treasury Committee in the previous Parliament, I had looked at many of the matters on the sovereign debt markets and was concerned, and I believe that the right decision was made.
	However, when two very different parties come together to get agreement on an essential issue there has to be agreement on other areas. The red line issues—the ones we will not have at any cost or the ones we must have at any cost—are relatively straightforward to address, because we either agree them or we do not, and we are either there or we are not. All the other matters that are subject to negotiation, both individually, as policies, and, most importantly, collectively, as a slate, are much more difficult to deal with. The coalition agreement is not a pick-and-mix menu; it is an agreement. I agreed to the boundary changes—in many respects with a heavy heart—but I did so in the knowledge that the rest of that agreement acted as a counterweight. To my mind, that would occur mainly through Lords reform, which I judged would increase the check on the Executive and
	strengthen Parliament. For me, that was a fundamental point and I believe it is a fundamental point for all my colleagues.

Sarah Wollaston: Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that there are many other ways in which we could reduce the size of the payroll vote in this House? That would have been perfectly possible to do by, for example, reducing the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries or Ministers. His argument is therefore surely not an acceptable one.

John Thurso: Many things are possible, but I have to deal with what is in the agreement and that is the key point.

Christopher Pincher: The hon. Gentleman said that this vote was linked to Lords reform. His leader does not think that, as he has said:
	“There is no link; of course, there is no link.”
	What has changed?

John Thurso: I am speaking for myself.

Sarah Newton: On this point about coalition well-being, does my hon. Friend agree that—and is he sad about the fact that—my Lib Dem colleagues in Cornwall are misrepresenting their vote this evening by saying that a vote against the Bill is a vote against a “Devonwall” seat? He knows, as I do, that the Boundary Commission decides the boundaries and it is not due to bring them back to us until October. So this is hardly good coalition politics, is it?

John Thurso: I think I grasped the point being made, but I think we should deal with what is before us today and that we should think again. We should accept what the Lords have said to us.

Jesse Norman: I thank my noble and hon. Friend for his comments. First, is he aware that there is a Bill at the moment that would reduce the size of the House of Lords without making it into an elected Chamber, which his own party is opposing? Secondly, on the question of whether the Lords are able to put up a decent fight against the Executive, is he aware that during the Labour Governments of Mr Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and the other—[Interruption.] I have forgotten his name, as he appears so rarely in this House. Is my hon. Friend aware that during that time the Lords defeated the Government 450-odd times and the Commons defeated them fewer than 10 times?

John Thurso: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that, as it is a perfect argument in favour of supporting their lordships on this occasion.

Andrew George: May I, through my hon. Friend, seek to clarify something? In places such as Cornwall, cross-party agreement has been established on opposing a cross-border constituency. We therefore have an opportunity today to vote in such a way as to
	defer that until after the next general election and therefore put off the time when such an unacceptable boundary change would affect the people of Cornwall.

John Thurso: My hon. Friend is right. I just want to make it clear that when I entered this coalition, I made it clear to the leadership, when my party discussed whether we would accept this arrangement, that for me the agreement in toto was what counted and that Lords reform, as part of the constitutional arrangements, was vital. After the vote on Lords reform, I made it abundantly clear to my leadership that my position had changed and I could not, in all conscience, continue to support what we had done before. That is a fundamental point for myself and my colleagues.
	I gently point out to my friends on the Government Benches, in the mildest manner possible, that they have got what they wanted: the great, the good, the wise, the academic, the apolitical, the ex-public servants and the generals, whom they strove so hard to protect, have come together in their wisdom and given us amendment 5. I beg the House to support it.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I hope that this is a point of order rather than a point of enormous wit—we shall discover.

Kevin Brennan: It is not for me to judge, Mr Speaker. During the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), he was intervened on a couple of times and was referred to as being the “noble” Member. Can you clarify whether or not there are any noble Members in this House? Or are we just all common?

Mr Speaker: All right hon. and hon. Members in this Chamber are equal. That is perhaps not the answer that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but it is the answer that he is going to get, especially as his attempted point of order was just that—attempted. It was many things but it was not a point of order.

Paul Blomfield: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who made a striking and powerful speech. I, like other Members, particularly enjoyed his last point.
	I am pleased to be able to speak in opposition to the Government motion and in support of Lords amendments 5 and 23, and I welcome the cross-party support for those amendments in the other place and in the Chamber today. The other place has done democracy a great service by highlighting the link between this Bill and the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, because, contrary to the point made by the Leader of the House, the impact of these two pieces of legislation together would have been unfairly to reduce the representation of our great cities and urban areas.
	A number of Government Members have talked about the simple principle of fairness, and the Leader of the House talked about the disparities in the system. There are disparities, but they are not the ones that he talked about. If I were selected by my party members again,
	the proposed boundaries would benefit me electorally. Nevertheless, they are unfair and undermine our democracy because of the enormous mismatch between population and registered voters.

Kevin Brennan: Is that not the heart of the argument, in that the Government’s original proposals were based on a principle of no representation without registration?

Paul Blomfield: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. Indeed, that is at the heart of my argument.

Chris Ruane: rose—

Paul Blomfield: I will give way to my hon. Friend, because he has done so much work on this issue and I have great respect for his views.

Chris Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. Does he think that the fairest way to redraw the boundaries might be to use the census statistics, as they give a full and accurate figure of everybody who lives in the UK?

Paul Blomfield: My hon. Friend has clearly done so much work on the issue that he anticipates one of the points that I was going to make. He is absolutely right.
	I want first to illustrate the mismatch by comparing my constituency, Sheffield Central, with the neighbouring constituency, Sheffield, Hallam. I am glad that I shall be walking through the same Lobby later as my political neighbour, but the two constituencies are of a very different nature and they illustrate my argument.
	Sheffield Central is inner city and multicultural; we have large council estates, houses in multiple occupation, two universities and very high levels of voter turnover. Already, 17% of households have nobody on the register. Sheffield, Hallam consists of our city’s leafy suburbs; it is largely monocultural with large areas of comfortable owner-occupation, and a very stable population. Only 4% of its households have nobody on the register. There is a huge disparity between the number of people represented by the MPs for those two constituencies.
	I have made that point before, but I now have the advantage of supporting it with the latest information available, which is from the 2011 census. If the argument was reduced to a simple question of constituency size based on the number of registered voters, our two constituencies would appear to be pretty similar in size. However, if we compare the population according to the 2011 census with the number of voters registered on 2 January 2013 according to the council’s electoral registration officer, we can see that the picture is completely different. Sheffield Central has 76,596 registered voters whereas Sheffield, Hallam has 71,559—the difference is just 5,037, or 7%. According to the census, Sheffield Central has a population of 115,284 whereas Sheffield, Hallam has a population of 89,356, and so the difference is 25,928, or 20%.

Mark Field: I, too, am a representative of an inner-city seat. Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises, as I do, that one of the main reasons behind such differences is the number of
	non-UK nationals in a particular constituency who often live in households containing no UK nationals and therefore no UK voters. I know that puts a huge additional burden on him as a Member of Parliament, as it does on me—all these people require representation—but they are not UK nationals and therefore should not be voting in UK general elections.

Paul Blomfield: There is a bit of a difference between the two inner-city seats that the hon. Gentleman and I represent. Although there is some evidence to endorse his point, it does not explain the enormous disparity between the two seats in Sheffield.
	Many of those who are excluded from the electoral register are precisely the people who form a huge proportion of my casework and I know that the situation will be the same for many Members who represent inner-city seats. More importantly, the combination of legislation means that their voice in Parliament will be reduced. If the Electoral Commission’s original concerns about the impact of the Bill came into being and were compounded by a process of redrawing boundaries based on the register as at December 2015, the gap would widen even more. If boundaries were redrawn based on an average electorate of 76,641, which was the basis for the Electoral Commission’s calculations, the actual population of Sheffield Central would be approaching 50% more than that of Sheffield, Hallam.
	Some might argue that the Electoral Commission’s worst fears might no longer come true, particularly in the light of some of the concessions the Government have been forced to make. In the longer term that might be true, but crucially the next boundary review would be conducted at the low point of the registration cycle in December 2015. Let me make it clear that like those on my Front Bench I support the principle of equalisation. In so far as there is public interest in constitutional reform, that argument has enormous resonance with the public, but the people to whom I have spoken were shocked to learn that equalisation is based not on population but on the number of registered electors. The effect of the combined legislation will be not to reduce but to enhance inequity.

Sarah Wollaston: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is simply not always the case? In Torbay, for example, those on one side of the road are represented by a Liberal Democrat colleague who represents 76,000 voters. On the other side of the road at the Brixham end of Torbay, which is in my constituency, there are just over 67,000 voters. One vote carries 11% more weight on the Brixham side of Torbay, and when we take the populations into account, the discrepancy is even higher. It does not always ring true that using population equalises matters because, in some cases, it would make things worse. It certainly would in my constituency, where the situation is already unfair.

Paul Blomfield: I do not think that Sheffield is any different from many of our other large urban centres, and I think that the effect I have described in relation to Sheffield would apply to the vast majority of urban areas in this country. There might be some exceptions in Devon.
	To respond to an earlier comment, my view is that we should move towards a system of genuinely equal constituencies based on boundaries drawn by population
	size, not by registered voter numbers, but that is clearly a debate for another time. Whether or not we go down that route, we need now to pause, to ensure that individual electoral registration does not further enhance inequity and does not further disempower our cities. If we do not pause, we risk creating a US-style democracy, with notorious under-registration, that excludes the disadvantaged and the disengaged and that focuses political parties and elections on the needs of the more privileged and in that way poisons our politics.

Chris Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once again. He mentions the American system, where registration has gone down. That was a deliberate political act by the Republican party to organise voter suppression. Does he think that there is an element of deliberate political voter suppression from the Conservative party?

Paul Blomfield: I do think indeed that the Conservative party had a plan.

Chris Ruane: It wasn’t very cunning.

Paul Blomfield: Indeed; the plan was pretty transparent, and it seems to be falling apart under the scrutiny of another place and with the support of other parties across the House. I am delighted about that because accepting Lords amendments 5 and 23 will provide the pause that we need to ensure that our democracy is not weakened. That would give us the time to get this right, and I look forward to the House supporting those amendments.

Penny Mordaunt: I hope I can cheer up my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and the whole House by quoting Edmund Burke, who told the electors of Bristol:
	“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment”.
	We cannot be on autopilot in the House; we must do what we think is right, in the interests of our constituents and the country, which is why I did not join my Government in voting against the measures on payday loans proposed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), or Labour’s proposed extension to the national insurance contribution holiday to the south-east, and it is why I voted against my Government over the constitutional car crash that was the House of Lords Reform Bill.
	I will defend the right of any Member to vote against their Whips for what they believe is right, but let us not kid ourselves that that is what the Liberals are up to today. It is not a constituency or national interest that has informed the amendments to clause 5, but self-interest. Edmund Burke did not say that we as representatives owe our constituents our spite, pettiness and self-interest, yet those are the qualities that seem to have brought us to these amendments.
	When we gave the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill its Second Reading in September 2010, 54 Liberal Democrats voted in favour, three abstained and none voted against. Indeed, the Conservative rebellion was greater—by my count, six of my colleagues voted against the Government.

Greg Mulholland: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, but one thing that I think we probably can agree on—certainly, some of us who have different positions on this—is that it was simply wrong to include those two very separate items in the Bill. I wanted to oppose the boundary changes, others wanted to oppose the AV measures, but we could not do so because they were tied up in the same Bill.

Penny Mordaunt: Presumably, when the Division bell rang on that occasion, 54 Liberals did not take collective leave of their senses—whether they lost them some time ago I cannot say. But I am sure that they were present in a moment of brilliant acuity as the bell tolled, and they voted to improve our parliamentary democracy, which is what the hon. Gentleman did.

Greg Mulholland: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Penny Mordaunt: I will make some progress.
	We can take it that the Liberals believed in equalising the size of constituencies and reducing the number of MPs. I say that with some confidence because we know that they believe it still; they just do not want it yet. Today, we are not asked to throw out the concepts altogether, which would be a bizarre but perhaps defensible position intellectually; we are simply asked to put them off till the next Parliament—a curious position of which some further explanation is required, and I hope that you agree, Mr Speaker.

Mark Spencer: One of the words that has been overused in this Parliament is “fairness”. Fairness, fairness, fairness is all that we have heard from some of our coalition colleagues, but a word that I would like to introduce is “honourability” and ask whether it is honourable for someone to take a position and then move, frankly, to a different one when they see what is before them.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend, and to ensure that I do not offend Mr Speaker or anyone else in the House, I welcome the opportunity to put on record the fact that I think all Liberal Democrat Members are honourable ladies and gentlemen, but I hope during my speech to point out to them what they would need to do to remain so by tomorrow morning.
	The answer to this puzzle is found not in the amendments but in the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has made it quite clear that Liberal support for the changes has been withdrawn because the House of Lords Bill could not be passed. I remind the House that that is the same Deputy Prime Minister who was quite categorical in his assurances that one had no influence over the other, while the battle for the constitution still raged. It has doubtless not helped the Liberals’ mood that the public so comprehensively rejected their plans for electoral reform. The Liberals have withdrawn their love because of a contrived slight.
	The Deputy Prime Minister can repeat until he is blue in the face—although a fuller conversion to that colour might prove harder to achieve—that the programme for government promised Lords reform, but that will not make it true. There was never any obligation for
	Conservatives to support Lords reform, and I rebelled with a heavy heart but a clear conscience. Will the same be true for the Liberals in the wrong Lobby today?

Mark Field: I share much of my hon. Friend’s frustration, but does she agree that this row would not have happened if, instead of focusing on the rather fatuous arguments about saving a relatively small amount of money, we had set out to equalise the constituencies but to keep the number at 650 for this House?

Penny Mordaunt: Even if we set aside the vital matter of the absence of an obligation on Lords reform, to make the allegation that Conservatives broke a coalition promise requires considerable front. Thirty-six per cent. of the Liberal Democrats rebelled over tuition fees, by comparison with less than 30% of the Conservatives on Lords reform. It is only because the Liberals have fewer MPs than we do—that is, they received a smaller mandate from the people—that their rebellion did not matter.

John Thurso: May I put the record straight? The coalition agreement on tuition fees was that all Liberal Democrats had the right to abstain. What happened was that a certain number of colleagues chose to go against the measure. In order, therefore, to give the Government what they needed, the remainder of my colleagues voted in favour of it. That is what really happened.

Penny Mordaunt: I am trying to give the Liberal Democrats a chance to justify their behaviour. Even if we accept the Liberal code of conduct of an eye for a coalition eye, after their flawed portrayal of the Lords Bill the score is, at best, even.

Mark Spencer: What message does my hon. Friend think is conveyed to colleagues who lost their job when they voted against that legislation and who will now witness some of our Liberal Democrat colleagues walking through the Lobby against Government policy but keeping their jobs?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend makes his point well. I am sure it is not lost on those in the Chamber and outside.
	We are forced to conclude that industry and judgment have indeed ceded the stage to spite, pettiness and self-interest. The people have rejected the Liberal Democrats’ voting reforms and the Liberal Democrats cannot win the argument for Lords reform, so they will oppose boundary changes, which they want, in the hope of re-opening negotiations after the next election, while casting flirtatious glances across the Chamber. The Liberals have exchanged their legendary sandals for flip-flops in the hope that that will enable them to keep their options open, but they would be wrong to think that the real damage they will do today is to the prospects of the Conservative victory in 2015 or to the notion of a Conservative government.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On the subject of Liberal Democrats, has not our hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter
	Ross (John Thurso) been strangely inconsistent today? Was not what he said on tuition fees exactly what happened on House of Lords reform? Some of us voted against House of Lords reform. In any case, is it not clear in the coalition agreement that the link was not to House of Lords reform but to AV? Is it not also clear that in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto they advocated a reduction of 150 Members of Parliament?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend is right. That is not lost on the House or on the general public. The only harm that the Liberals will do today is to themselves. They confirm what has long been suspected—that the national interest and the constituency interest come a poor second to Liberal Democrat interest.

Sarah Wollaston: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrats have had to get off their high horse because they have sent it to be turned into horse burgers?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend makes a good and amusing point.

Paul Farrelly: Does the hon. Lady agree that, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)—the hon. Member for three and a bit counties—explained, the Liberals are only following the very wise maxim, “When the facts change, I change my mind”? It is a maxim that her Chancellor might also follow.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. This comes to the heart of the matter. When the Division bell goes today, the 54 Liberals who voted in favour last time must ask themselves why a boundary review is a less valid measure now than it was in 2010 or will be in 2018. They must have a care for their consciences, do what is right for the country and their constituents, and do the honourable thing.

Chris Ruane: I have been interested in this issue since 2001, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) informed me that there had been a massive drop in voter registration in 100 constituencies, 90 of which, I discovered when I looked at the figures, were Labour constituencies. Some might say that it was our fault for introducing the changes that we introduced in 2000.
	I have sought to get the facts and figures on this for the past 10 years. I have tabled over 400 parliamentary questions on registration, population size and boundary size, and I have spoken in every debate on the matter in this House. I have come to the conclusion that what is, or was, proposed is a political act to deliver, in the case of the boundaries review and legislation, the 2015 general election, and in the case of individual electoral registration, the three or four elections after that. I hope that we will find out very shortly that it has all come to naught.
	The reasons why I say this are many. I wish to compare the attitude of this Government with the attitude of the previous Labour Government. I blame the previous Labour Government, and I do so to their face, for not getting what we thought were 3.5 million missing electors on to the register. It was our fault that we did not do that. However, no one can accuse the previous Labour Government of using our political
	majority, which was huge, for party political advantage on constitutional issues. One of the first things that Labour did was introduce proportional representation in the European elections. In Wales, we went from having four Labour MEPs to one Labour MEP. We had a majority of 180 back in 1997—such a huge majority that we could have delivered devolution to Northern Ireland, to Scotland and to Wales without PR, but in the interests of fair play and playing properly on the constitution, we introduced PR, which did down Labour’s vote.

Susan Elan Jones: It is good that my hon. Friend has made that thoughtful mention of Wales. Does he agree that this Bill means that the people of Wales will see a reduction of 10 seats, from 40 down to 30? I would be interested if the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) wished to intervene to say whether he agrees with that, and, if not, how he would explain it to his dwindling electorate.

Chris Ruane: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to intervene.

Guto Bebb: indicated dissent.

Chris Ruane: He does not. I think that he has forgotten about the Act of 1536 which settled these issues.

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman has a very selective memory on the actions of the previous Labour Government. The massive extension of postal voting and the resulting lack of trust that is now in the electoral system was brought about with the massive majority to which he referred. That has made an enormous difference to the running of our elections and has led to a huge amount of distrust, particularly in inner-city seats.

Chris Ruane: If the hon. Gentleman looks at one of the 400 questions that I have tabled on this issue, he will see that the number of people who have been prosecuted for electoral fraud each year is about one or two. That is bad; any electoral fraud is bad. If he looks at the other side of the scales of justice, he will see that there are not, as we thought, 3.5 million people missing off the register, but 6 million. If individual elector registration had gone ahead as proposed by the Government, 16 million people would have been missing off the register.
	Let us have a look at the pans of justice. With one or two cases a year of electoral fraud, all the resources are made available, but with 6.5 million people off the register, no resources are available. One of my questions, which was answered two weeks ago, asked for some numbers on this subject. If electors do not fill in the extra registration form, the electoral registration officer has to send a canvasser to their house at least twice—that is the law. Labour managed to implement that law, and in 2010 only eight local authorities disobeyed it; I think that they were all Tory authorities. In 2011, when the Tories had got their feet under the table, that figure massively increased, to 30 or 40. Of the 60 constituencies in England that do not send an electoral registration officer to knock on the doors of the non-registered, 55 are Conservative, one is Labour—Telford—and I think that the rest are Lib Dem. There is an element of politicisation in what the Conservative party is proposing.
	Three years ago I went to see Experian to discuss the issue of the unregistered. I told its representatives that 3.5 million people were not on the register, but they said that the actual figure was 6.5 million. I took that information to the Electoral Commission, which said, “That can’t be true. We’ll do our own research on the issue.” Lo and behold, 18 months later, the commission came back to me and said, “Mr Ruane, you and Experian are absolutely right, but the 6.5 million people who are off the register are a different 6.5 million people from those noted by Experian.” I therefore asked the Electoral Commission whether 13 million people could be missing from the register; I said it tongue in cheek, but millions of people are missing from the register and the resources have not been made available to get them on to it.
	The proposed boundary review changes should not go ahead while 6.5 million people are missing from the register. Moreover, the next boundary review is due to take place on 1 December 2013, after individual electoral registration, so we could end up with millions more missing after that. We will end up with a reputation as a banana republic if 6.5 million, 10.5 million or 16 million people are missing from the register. This is no way to run a democracy.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman and I have had various arguments on this issue across the Floor of the House for as many as nine years. Even if what he is saying is correct, he is completely missing the point about the amendment and the importance of the Bill. How can he say that it is fair that Arfon has 41,000 constituents while Somerton and Frome has double the number—82,000? How can he possibly say that that is fair?

Chris Ruane: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She should think about the figure that I have mentioned: 6.5 million people are missing from the register. The vast majority of them will be in Labour constituencies. The vast majority of the case load for Labour Members and those Members who serve poorer constituencies around the country comes from the unregistered, the people who should legally be on the register but are not. If those people were factored in, the inequality would not be as great.

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend think that, if the island of Anglesey is not to have a Member of Parliament, it is fair that the Isle of Wight is to have two under the Government’s proposals?

Chris Ruane: I concur with my hon. Friend’s point.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. To use the example of the county of Greater Manchester, in the previous Parliament we were entitled to have 28 Members of Parliament. As a result of the 2010 periodic review, that number was cut to 27, and the proposed boundary changes would lead to it being cut to 26, yet the 2011 census shows that the population of Greater Manchester is going up, not down.

Chris Ruane: I agree with my hon. Friend and think that the census should be the basis for any future redrawing of boundaries.
	In conclusion, the reason given by the Conservative party for wanting to introduce the boundary review changes is to decrease the number of MPs from 650 to 600. It says that it is a case of cost and that that is its primary reason, and yet when I tried to table a parliamentary question in the Table Office to find out the cost of an MP and the cost of a Lord, I was told that I was not allowed to do so. Fortunately a Lord in the other place tabled the question and received the response that it costs £130,000 per Lord and £590,000 per MP. The Government have created an extra 125 Lords since they came to power in 2010 and they propose to create another 50 over the next few weeks. Where is the logic in creating an extra 175 unelected Lords while reducing the House of Commons from 650 to 600 Members?

Chloe Smith: I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon for interrupting him when he was about to conclude. Given that he is in favour of having such hard casework, is he proud of the fact that his electorate is about two thirds the size of mine?

Chris Ruane: My electorate was even smaller than that of the hon. Lady’s constituency 10 years ago. The voter population in my constituency went down to as low as 47,000. It was only when I started to put pressure on, and following the professionalisation of the electoral registration officer in Denbighshire county council, that the number went from 47,000 to 57,000. I believe that there are even more unregistered people in the constituency.
	The vast majority of the 6.5 million missing voters are in Labour constituencies. This is therefore a political act, and one that has come unstuck.

Bill Wiggin: It has been said that
	“political duty must be placed before private feeling.”
	That was how James Rankin, the MP for Leominster, advised the House when the boundaries came up for review in 1884. He went on to say that the Prime Minister had
	“appealed to the Members who sat for small boroughs not to be selfish”.—[Official Report, 28 April 1884; Vol. 287, c. 799.]
	I agree with the then Prime Minister and my predecessor from long ago. Mr Rankin’s concern was for his constituency and the people whom he fought to represent. That is my concern now because, without wishing to get misty-eyed, after nearly 12 years, I am deeply fond of them.
	Where we can all agree is on the principle of evening out the size of seats and ensuring that every vote carries equal value. In our last manifesto, we promised to champion a fairer system. It is only right that we try to make good that commitment. I do not think that everyone knows how grotesquely skewed the current state of affairs is. Some constituencies are almost double the size of others, meaning that their inhabitants are under-represented in elections and, subsequently, at Westminster. The overall balance is weighted heavily towards the Labour party. Labour Members know in their hearts that were it the other way around, they would be the first to call for realignment. Their opposition hardly befits a modern democracy.
	Ironically, before the last boundary change, my constituency was about the right size numerically. It was close to the UK average of 76,641 voters. Yet that did not save it. That is where my problem lies.

Tom Harris: Perhaps my memory is failing me and the hon. Gentleman’s is better, but when the boundaries were stacked against the Labour party and in favour of the Conservatives in the 1980s, did the Conservative party demand the kind of changes that it is demanding today?

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman was not here in the ’80s and neither was I. I will carry on because time is short.
	The problem I have is not with the theory behind the sixth general review, but with how it has been conducted in practice. We all want fairness and had high hopes that the Boundary Commission could do a better job. With hindsight, perhaps it should have been asked to respect county boundaries over ward boundaries. Despite agreeing to take existing constituencies into consideration as far as possible, the Boundary Commission for England recommended that the North Herefordshire constituency be dismantled and merged with Worcestershire and Shropshire to form a constituency with a minority part of each county. My hon. Friends and neighbours are fine people and there is little to be gained from Conservative Members fighting one another. At a time when people do not believe promises and when people vote for independents who have no manifesto, I believe that honouring the promises that I made to my constituents at the general election is very important.
	The Prime Minister said at Admiralty house on 6 June 2011:
	“We will help you through this”.
	That was one of his best intentioned, least helpful and most worrying comments. What did he mean? What did he think would happen? How would help be offered? Did he really care about it at all? My sense of concern must have been felt by the Lib Dem coalition partners. How extraordinary it is in modern politics that one’s seat can be saved by one’s opponents who have spent the last 12 years trying to take it away.
	There are more dilemmas in this vote for me and my constituents. What in the end would benefit them more: a future Conservative Government or a better alignment of boundaries? In 1884, my ancient forebear put the answer on the record. I will not bore the House with the details. He did say, however, that every elector should have two votes. I cannot agree with that.
	Otherwise, little has changed. I do not believe that Herefordshire has received the respect that the Boundary Commission should have given it, but I will always put my constituents first; they will always be my priority. Whether the fairness and equality of a vote, and the corresponding chance of a Conservative victory, is more important than the boundaries of my existing and historic seat, is a decision worthy of deep deliberation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, since I will not have the chance to make a speech today. Amendment 5 contains one important provision that shows why those who vote for the amendment are absolutely determined to wreck the Bill. The explanatory notes to the amendment state that
	“the Boundary Commissions would not have a discretion to consider inconveniences attendant on boundary changes”
	In other words, they would have grounds to argue against any boundary changes that the boundary commissions proposed.

Bill Wiggin: I am deeply sorry that my hon. Friend will not have the chance to say more this evening. He deserves to.
	The economic and other damage left by the Labour party, and the need for equality in votes, shows the greatest good to my county and my country although it may cause me the most harm personally. Putting aside all temptations and fears, my conclusion is that the sacrifice made by the loss of my seat must be worth it for my constituents. They deserve promises to be kept, fairness and justice to be paramount, and for their vote to count as equally as any other. I therefore support the Government and disagree with their lordships.

Peter Bone: I want to make a few brief points. I voted against the original Bill on Second and Third Reading because I wanted to see boundaries equalised but not a reduction in Members. I lost that debate and that vote, and I accept the will of the House. I also accept that Labour Members have been consistent in their views.
	I thought today that I would be speaking in support of the Government, but I have since learned that I am speaking in support of Conservatives in the Government, which makes me feel a little better. My problem is very simple. If one reads the debates on Second and Third Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister, who led for the Government on this issue, made sensible remarks about equalising the size of constituencies, with which I thoroughly agree. However, when something is said as a matter of principle—this is where I think politics is brought into disrepute—whether it is about an in-out referendum on the EU or voting against tuition fees, and when a deal is done and a pledge made in coalition that there will be a vote on the alternative vote and in return the boundary review will be supported, that pledge must be kept.
	The only honourable thing the Liberal Democrats can do tonight if they do not vote with Conservative Members is resign from the Government and cross the Floor of the House. If they have any principle, any honesty, that is what they must do. I remember when the aspiring new Prime Minister spoke to the Conservative party in the 1922 committee when the coalition came into being. The only issue that the party had to decide on was whether it would allow a vote on AV in return for Liberal Democrat support on boundary reviews. That was the deal. The Conservative party kept to that deal but the Liberal Democrats have gone back on their part of it. They are a disgrace and should be on the Opposition Benches.

Ben Gummer: I rise briefly to express my regret on three points. First, I regret that the other place has seen fit to ride through the conventions that have held it secure in its position for many centuries. It has done so on the basis of Members who have gone to that House, precisely—Opposition Members have referred to this—through a packing of the House of Lords under the previous Government. Those Members have then ridden through their conventions in order to place us in this position, with a constitutional change foisted on this democratically elected House.
	I also regret that we will not have boundary review until 2018 if we disagree to the motion. That will mean that many Members will not be equal. Mr Speaker, you said in response to an earlier point of order that all hon. Members are equal, but they will not be equal in the representation they bring to the House.
	My third regret is that Labour Members believe that some Members are more equal than others. The arguments they have deployed—quite apart from the typically graceless speech by the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan)—have been specious in the extreme.
	The Liberal Democrats, whose arguments were put by one of their most noble Members, have exposed themselves—this is often the case with Liberal Democrats, as hon. Members who have fought them on the doorstep will know—as people who have one idea at one time and change their mind when it matters at another time. I understand their position and why they have come to it with heavy regret. I am a full supporter of the coalition, which is in the business of saving the country.
	However, nothing can excuse the Labour party trying, by every kind of sophistry, to present arguments as to why one person’s vote should count for more than another person’s in different constituencies, including ones that neighbour each other. As a result, their position debases our democracy. Labour Members should answer to the electorate for what they are doing to our Parliament.

Greg Mulholland: Twenty-seven months ago, in October 2010, I tabled an amendment that said that the boundary changes were being rushed through and should be postponed until the next Parliament. I was right then and I am right now.
	Hon. Members agree that this is a serious issue, and that we should look to try to have more equal constituencies, but the logic that has been followed does not do that. We need common-sense proposals for the next Parliament that hon. Members can unite around. We need constituencies that do not cross county boundaries and major council boundaries, and ones that are geographically commonsensical. The measure needs to be tied in with individual registration, as the Bill should have been.
	If we are serious about reducing the number of MPs, we need a debate on what our role is. If we reduce the number, it will be more difficult for us to fulfil our myriad roles—our roles are different from those of Members of other Parliaments in the world.
	The truth is that the Bill was based on a solid principle, but the reality was wrong. We have a duty to scrutinise it. I said that in October 2010, and I have not changed my mind. I will be voting the right way, as I did three years ago.
	Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No.83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 292, Noes 334.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Lords amendment 5 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.
	Lords amendment 23 agreed to.
	After Clause 17

Voters waiting at polling station at close of poll

Chloe Smith: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 7.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 10, 11, 1 to 4, 6, 8, 9 and 12 to 22.

Chloe Smith: With your leave, Mr Speaker, I shall—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Will right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber—[Hon. Members: “We’re celebrating!”] Will Members who are leaving the Chamber for whatever purpose please do so as quickly and quietly as possible so that I can call Minister Smith to speak to the motion? She should not have to fight to be heard, and we wish to hear her.

Chloe Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall speak to Lords amendment 7 and, with your leave, I shall speak to the other amendments in the group as well. It might therefore take me a few minutes to complete my speech, as it covers all the amendments.
	Lords amendments 7, 10 and 11 will enable voters waiting in a queue at close of poll to be issued with ballot papers and to vote, even if the time of close of poll has passed. Following debates on the subject, the Government have decided to accept the principle of the amendments introduced in both Houses, to ensure that people are able to exercise their right to vote if they are already in the queue at 10 pm on polling day. The measure has attracted cross-party support in both Houses, and the Government agree with the sentiment behind a change in the law to enable voters to vote.
	The Government did not accept amendments previously tabled on this subject, and have instead introduced their own group of amendments to address some of the issues identified by the previous amendments. For example, the amendment tabled by Lord Pannick did not apply to Northern Ireland and would have resulted in an inconsistent position for voters across the United Kingdom.
	In tabling their own amendments, the Government remain concerned that all potential consequences for other aspects of electoral law of any new provisions relating to close of poll should be dealt with at the point at which the new provisions take effect, to reduce the risk of unintended consequences. I will not dwell at length on those amendments; suffice it to say that the term “close of poll” is used in a number of electoral provisions, including those that determine when exit polls may be published and the point by which postal votes must be returned. Some of those provisions attract criminal penalties and it would not be right if the impact of a change were not considered and addressed, to avoid a position in which people might fall foul of the law inadvertently. The amendments therefore provide for a proportionately limited power that will allow the Government to make any such consequential changes that might be required on commencement.
	Let me make it clear that, although the Government are introducing these amendments, we remain of the view that proper planning by returning officers must be the first priority to reduce the risk of queues forming. However, this change to the law will provide an effective back-stop to supplement that planning. The Government have also consistently argued that administrative points remain to be addressed, and we will work closely with the Electoral Commission and electoral administrators on the best way to implement the amendments for voters. However, putting aside those points of detail, I hope that we can agree to support this change to the law for the benefit of voters.
	The other amendments in the group relate to the transition to, and operation of, individual electoral registration. That is the core of the Bill, through which we aim to tackle electoral fraud and the perception of fraud. Under IER, electors will be required to register individually, rather than by household. In that way, we will be moving to a system in which individuals will have to provide information to verify their application, and so take responsibility for their registration to vote. That will modernise our electoral registration system, facilitating the move to online registration and making it more convenient for people to register to vote. Our aim is to tackle electoral fraud, increase the number of people registered to vote, and improve the integrity of the register.
	It falls to me to rebut a few points made in the previous debate, as they properly relate to the subject matter in this group of amendments. I was concerned to hear the Labour Front-Bench team whipping up scare stories. It felt to me that they had little else to say, and their opportunism led them to introduce some confusion into our debate. It is important to note that the figures occasionally quoted, as I understand it, by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) who is not in his place, related to an opt-out that was included in the draft legislation published in June 2011, and not to the transition to individual electoral registration in general. The hon. Gentleman quoted the concern of the Electoral Commission about completeness, potentially leaving, in his citation, 16 million people unregistered. Those comments were, I suggest, a misquotation of the Electoral Commission’s chairwoman, Jenny Watson. She clarified her opinion in a follow-up statement. I hope that is of help to the House.
	It is also important to rebut very firmly further comments of the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd. Sadly, I see that he is still not in his place, after having made the lurid suggestion that the Government are engaged in voter suppression. I cannot stand against that more strongly. I think it would be helpful if I noted that the Electoral Commission has been calling for the introduction of IER since 2003. It supports that introduction and believes
	“it is the right thing to do because the current system is vulnerable to fraud; and it is right that people take responsibility for their own votes. The ‘household’ registration system means there is no personal ownership by citizens of a fundamental aspect of their participation in our democracy—their right to vote.”
	I seek to support that right to vote. I am concerned that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, who is still not in his place to engage in debate, made such lurid comments.

Geraint Davies: The Minister will be aware that 25% of people in Britain are functionally illiterate, meaning that they cannot handle a yellow pages directory effectively, and that many others cannot speak English very well. There is reason to believe that when others are helping people to register in households, this move could lead to a reduction in registration and the disfranchisement of many of those people.

Chloe Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that thoughtful point. I would be happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman in more detail outside this place, as I fear that we will not have time in a full hour to deal with every way in which under-represented groups need to be assisted, supported and encouraged to register to vote. It is absolutely this Government’s intention and passion to get as many people registered to vote as possible. That would certainly include, using appropriate methods, the groups to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Graham Stringer: Does that mean that it is the Government’s policy to support house-to-house canvasses to make sure that individuals register, and will such canvasses be resourced?

Chloe Smith: Yes, it is the Government’s policy that the annual canvass is a valuable part of the process. The hon. Gentleman will, I suspect, know as well as I do
	that it is for local authorities to resource that in the sense of providing the people to carry it out. He will also know that it has been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that the Government will ensure that financial resources are available to local authorities.

John Redwood: Just as we want to make sure that anyone who is eligible to vote is able to do so, we also need to make sure that only those eligible to vote do vote. Will the Minister remind us what checks there will be on an individual to prevent that individual from registering twice under different names?

Chloe Smith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The innovation of data-matching will allow us to cross-reference, we hope, about 70% of electors against other sources of data held by the Government. That will, in large part, assist the endeavour outlined by my right hon. Friend. It will help to ensure that the register is both as complete and as accurate as possible, and that those who should not on the register are not included.
	I recognise that the transition to individual electoral registration poses a risk to completeness rates. We are introducing safeguards which will avoid a drop in the number of registrations, but will also help us to ensure that the right people are on the register. Data-matching, which I have already mentioned, confirms the accuracy of the majority of entries. Most electors will not have to do anything in order to remain on the register if it is correct for them to be included on it.
	We are moving the 2013 household canvass to early 2014 so that the registers used for the transition to IER are as up to date as possible. We are phasing in the transition over two years, carrying forward existing electors so that they are eligible to vote in the 2015 general election. We shall be writing to all electors in 2014 with reminders, and doorstep canvassing will take place as it does at present. We are working with the Electoral Commission to ensure that the public are informed about the change. We are also actively exploring ways in which we can make it as convenient and as secure as possible for citizens to register to vote, such as new channels including online registration.
	I have already spoken about Lords amendment 7, and about the need to modernise our electoral registration system. As I have said, our aim is to tackle electoral fraud, increase the number of people registered to vote, and improve the integrity of the register. The Bill also includes provisions to improve the administration and conduct of elections, which will serve to increase voter participation, and to make a number of improvements in the running of elections.
	Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 would require the forms of acceptable evidence used to verify entitlement to register to be prescribed in secondary legislation. The Government have always intended the evidence required in an initial application to be prescribed in regulations, although the Bill as introduced permitted Ministers to prescribe the types of evidence. The amendments were tabled in response to scrutiny by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform and Constitution Committees in the other place, requiring such evidence to be placed in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
	Lords amendments 6, 8, 9, 20, 21 and 22 would provide for an extended carry-forward of non-individually registered electors from 2015 to 2016 unless that was deemed unnecessary. The effect would be to postpone the final date for the transition to a register entirely made up of individually registered electors until December 2016. The Secretary of State would, however, have the power to take the final step in 2015—in keeping with the existing plans for implementation of IER—if he was satisfied that the transition to IER could be concluded at that point, by means of an order that would be subject to the negative procedure. I hope that Members will welcome the reassurance that that change would bring: the reassurance that following the implementation of IER, the electoral register will be as complete and accurate as possible.
	Let me stress that the amendments do not alter our aim to deliver an IER-only register in December 2015. They simply add a safeguard so that Parliament has a say in the removal of electors from the register in that year. I note that the Electoral Commission agrees with us that it is necessary to encourage electoral administrators to work to that deadline.
	The remaining Lords amendments are minor and technical amendments that would improve the smooth running of individual electoral registration. Lords amendments 12, 16 and 19 would ensure that the provisions on anonymous entries on the electoral register continued to work following the transition to IER. Lords amendments 13 and 14 would help to ensure that as many eligible applicants as possible are included in the revised register published on 1 December by removing a time limit that would prevent some applications from being added until the January update. Removing that restriction would not affect people’s entitlement to object to an application for registration, or the registration officer’s duty to determine objections.
	Amendments 15 and 18 are intended to improve the functioning of section 49 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, ensuring that challenges to the eligibility of an entry on the electoral register do not result in an elector being unable to cast their vote. Under section 49, it is not necessary to set out the dates to which an allegation relates for there to be a successful objection to an elector’s registration. Amendment 17 would ensure that there is no ambiguity about the continued application under IER of the existing criminal offence relating to non-disclosure of information in response to the annual canvass or about providing false information in response.
	The amendments in this group reflect the listening approach we have taken to the Bill as it has progressed from draft legislation through pre-legislative and other Committee scrutiny and into the debates in this House and the other place. That approach is to be welcomed—indeed, at key moments the Opposition Front-Bench team have welcomed it.
	Following passionate and informed debate, significant changes have been made to the legislation to address concerns about the potential completeness of the register in 2015, for instance by stating that forms of evidence used to verify applicants’ identities must be set out in regulations and by allowing voters queuing at polling stations at close of poll to be issued with ballot papers and to vote.
	I commend the Lords amendments to the House.

Wayne David: I shall address amendments 7, 10 and 11 first, and then amendments 6, 8, 9, 21 and 22.
	The Opposition have consistently supported the introduction of individual electoral registration. We agree with it in principle; indeed, we legislated for it when we were in government. We also support the twin principles of achieving maximum accuracy in the electoral registers and maximum completeness. I am pleased the Government have now accepted the arguments that we and others have put forward in this House on a number of occasions. I remember the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) being totally dismissive of them, but we welcome the fact that the approach taken by the other place is more rational and that the Government admit—although belatedly—that their initial arguments were wrong, and that they now agree with us. The Government have seen the light, on this issue at least.
	I am also pleased that the Scottish Government have taken action and that the views of the Electoral Commission have been taken on board. I remind the House that, in the aftermath of the May 2010 general election, the Electoral Commission produced a report that identified four key factors in what had gone wrong. There was evidence of poor planning assumptions in some areas, and of poor conduct of the election on polling day. The use of unsuitable buildings and inadequate staffing arrangements at some polling stations were also an issue. It was said, too, that the contingency arrangements were not properly triggered or were unable to cope with demand at the close of poll—that was very evident. Finally, the Electoral Commission found that there was restrictive legislation which meant those in queues at polling stations at the close of poll were not able to be issued with a ballot paper. The Government were initially trenchantly opposed to that objective view. They now agree that it is necessary to accept it and to introduce corrective legislation. I welcome that; this House supports the Government’s conversion.
	The second substantive issue is to do with the so-called carry-forward—or carry-over—and the commencement of full individual electoral registration in December 2015 or December 2016. We support the Government’s amendments in that regard and recognise that there has been a move, albeit a more modest one than on the other big issue, to try to accommodate the legitimate concerns expressed in the other place. However, the Electoral Commission has reservations about these amendments and, indeed, they are a rather convoluted set.
	The Minister set out a convoluted process. I have to be honest and say that, on occasion, it sounded as though she was speaking double Dutch. The Bill is to contain a delay in the implementation of full IER from December 2015 to December 2016. We might think that that is fair enough, as it will allow greater parliamentary scrutiny, greater parliamentary involvement and a greater opportunity to get more people on to the electoral register under IER than would have been the case otherwise. But, unfortunately, the Government will not go the whole hog, and they are introducing a byzantine system whereby having a cake and eating it is the order of the day. They are saying, “Yes, that change will be in the Bill, but we reserve the right to contradict what is in the Bill by saying that our implementation plan stays in place. We will still want to do what we always intended
	to do, despite the amendment we put into the Bill.” If any hon. Member is confused, I do not blame them, because, as I said, the Government are speaking double Dutch.
	To make matters worse, the Government have introduced a complicated procedure—the negative assent procedure—involving both Houses, and that will make the situation even more complicated. Let me try to be helpful to the Minister, as always, by suggesting what the Government might do to resolve their internal contradiction. She began by sensibly saying that the implementation date will move from December 2015 to December 2016, but there remains a right for the Secretary of State or Lord President of the Council to make an order to remove those carried-forward entries in December 2015. Given the mood of the House and what has been said generally this afternoon, I suggest that the Government give a firm commitment not to implement that, so that everybody will be clear that the implementation date will be 2016. We will support these amendments, but it would be enormously helpful if the Minister responded positively, recognising the mood of both Houses, by saying, without any equivocation, that there will be a delay in the implementation of IER until December 2016.

Eleanor Laing: I was totally taken by surprise to discover that the Minister is urging the House to accept Lords amendment 7 on voters waiting at polling stations at the close of poll. On 27 June 2012, I introduced this very amendment—it was almost word for word—which was known then as new clause 4. I will not repeat the speech I made then. We had a long debate and I was supported in my arguments by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)—that is all on the record in Hansard,at column 359 and onwards. That is lucky, because we do not have time to debate that all again this afternoon, and I am delighted that we do not have to do so.
	In that debate, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) stood there and told me how everything I said was wrong and that I was silly to waste the House’s time by introducing my new clause, which he said was total rubbish and totally unnecessary. He said that returning officers could deal with all the problems and that this was merely a matter of management.

Angela Smith: indicated assent.

Eleanor Laing: I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees with my recollection of what happened on 27 June. I believe she also agrees with my arguments that these matters should not be left up to individual registration officers, especially given that their ability, resources, experience and enthusiasm vary considerably from one part of the country to another.

John Redwood: I remember my hon. Friend’s speech and she made her point very well at the time. I suggest that she claims credit and congratulates the Ministers on realising that she had a better Government policy than they did. We can then be one big happy family.

Eleanor Laing: I thank my right hon. Friend for that point and am coming to it.
	I am very glad that the Minister recognises what I and other Members said on 27 June 2012 was right, but, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree, this is also a very good example of why we need a revising Second Chamber rather than another House at the other end of this Palace of Westminster that challenges everything we do and makes things difficult for the process of government. We need a House that looks again at what has been said and done in this Chamber and makes sensible suggestions. In this case, the suggestion made by their lordships is almost exactly the same as the suggestion I made on 27 June; I am delighted that their lordships agree and I am extremely delighted that the Minister is urging the House to accept the amendment.

Neil Parish: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on her foresight and vision. It is great that the Government are taking on her suggestion, because there is no doubt that if a queue of people is waiting at the polling station to vote, it is not beyond the wit of man or woman to put a polling clerk or somebody else in the line to act as a marker between those who arrived before 10 o’clock and those who arrived afterwards. I cannot see any great argument for saying that that would delay the whole process, because at the count many boxes come in from all over the constituency and some will arrive first, meaning that their contents can start to be counted, whereas others will arrive later. We got ourselves into a bureaucratic nightmare that could be fixed quite simply. I am delighted that the Government have accepted the Lords amendment, and I congratulate my hon. Friend again on her foresight.

Chloe Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to add a few comments in response to what has been said this afternoon. I suspect it comes as no surprise to anyone that this is the quieter end of this afternoon’s work and that we might finish rather sooner than the programme motion suggests.
	The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), if understood him correctly, urged me to take a slightly different approach to the programme’s implementation date. Let me deal with that first. I stress again the points I made in my opening speech: like the hon. Gentleman, we want the transition to IER to be as clear and easy as possible for electors and administrators. The Electoral Commission is a key part of that work through its delivery of both the nuts and bolts—that is, the forms and operational guidance—and the publicity campaign that will accompany the transition.
	It is important that we are all clear on the implementation plan. As my noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire stated in the other place when outlining these amendments, we expect the transition to IER to take place on the time scale set out in the implementation plan published last July. I reassure the House, the Electoral Commission, administrators and electors that we are committed to implementing the transition to IER during 2014 and 2015, resulting in a register published in December 2015 that includes only individually registered electors.

Wayne David: If the Minister is reiterating the point that the Government are committed to the original implementation plan, why are they proposing to change the Bill? She cannot face both ways; it is one or the
	other. We all agree that we want clarity, but it must have a firm base. She cannot have her cake and eat it, as I said earlier.

Chloe Smith: I humbly suggest that the other place—the revising Chamber that it indeed is—thought that this was a sensible way to go. I simply note, of course, that although I would have liked things to be as originally proposed—2015, with no further detail—this is a concession tabled in response to concerns expressed in the other place.

Wayne David: As the Minister belatedly says, of course this Government amendment was proposed in the other place. What I am suggesting is that, rather than having clarity as the prime motivation, the Government were quite keen to have a grubby little compromise and the Bill deserves better. It is far too important in principle to have a convoluted, contradictory implementation date. What we need, again, is clarity and straightforwardness. The people on the ground—the electoral registration officers—require that.

Chloe Smith: I give the hon. Gentleman clarity and straightforwardness, as I have done several times now and will happily do again. The implementation plan for IER remains exactly the same. The Government amendment was tabled in response to concerns expressed in the other place. It strikes a sensible balance, and I note again all the benefits of a two-year transition that we have planned for, such as two canvasses and, of course, a general election where interest in politics will be high, starting in November 2013—that is, the transition, not the general election—backed up by our national campaign with the Electoral Commission to maximise registration. All those elements will now proceed apace, to the plan that we have set out, and I think that that is absolutely clear. I welcome the Electoral Commission’s direct confirmation that
	“For practical planning purposes, the Commission’s view is that it will…advise EROs to plan on the basis that the point of removal is likely to be 2015”.
	That answers the point and makes things as clear as possible.

Wayne David: The Minister is generous in giving way, but given that she has been unwilling to accept my reasonable suggestion, does she agree that at the end of the day the implementation date of IER will depend on the result of the next general election?

Chloe Smith: It is no surprise to anyone that to learn there will be a general election in 2015, and it is no
	surprise to anyone who reads the detail of the amendments to learn that a key decision will take place in the summer following that election. I make no secret of that. In fact, it is as well for me to have the chance to talk briefly about that because what we see there is the ability for the then Government to take a reasoned and data-driven view of the completeness and accuracy of the electoral registers as they will then exist. For that reason, I have faith in the approach of the 2015 stop point being the right one, because I am confident that our plan will have delivered the completeness and accuracy that we all seek.

Wayne David: We are coming to the close of our parliamentary proceedings on the Bill, and I accept what the Minister says: the Government have a principled position, as I believe that we do, in wanting to ensure that as many people as possible who are entitled to be on the electoral register are indeed on it. As was mentioned earlier this afternoon, there is a great deal of concern that the Government might not be doing as much as they could to get groups that are traditionally under-represented on the electoral register engaged in the new process. In the Minister’s concluding remarks, will she reassure the House that that work is under way and will continue apace?

Chloe Smith: I certainly do seek to give that reassurance, but not—I would like it noted—in response to the frankly lurid accusations that have been made this afternoon by Members who are no longer present in the Chamber. The Government’s aim is to tackle electoral fraud and to improve the integrity of the register. We are indeed undertaking a programme of activity to get the maximum number of eligible people on to the electoral register. That is vital. The Bill enables the introduction of a modernised electoral registration system that makes it easier for people to vote. It will improve the integrity of the register and, therefore, of the electoral processes that are based on it.
	I welcome the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) seeking for voters to be able to cast their votes at polling stations. I am well aware of the history of that debate, both in this Chamber and in the other place. I recognise that in the course of the Bill we have been able to take a pragmatic approach to the concerns of both Houses and, I hope, to accommodate them in a way that delivers a sensible implementation programme and a Bill of which we can all be proud.
	Lords amendment 7 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 10, 11, 1 to 4, 6, 8, 9 and 12 to 22 agreed to.

HGV Road User Levy Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 20 November 2012 (HGV Road User Levy Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
	I wish to put on record the helpful, constructive and conciliatory approach of the Opposition to the programme motion.
	Question put and agreed to.

HGV Road User Levy Bill

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

Clause 7
	 — 
	rebate of levy

Jim Fitzpatrick: I beg to move amendment 1,page5,line4, leave out subsection (3).
	I had the opportunity to have an informal chat with the Minister earlier today about the amendment. Although I am aware that technically it may not do the job exactly as required, I shall outline its intent and the background, and I hope the Minister will address both the intent and what is proposed, and deal with the requirements in due course.
	The background to the amendment is correspondence from the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, from Miss Amanda Brandon, the legal and policy executive of the BVRLA, and the legal director, Mr Jay Parmar. The BVRLA, as the Minister and colleagues who were on the Committee will know, gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee on 4 December. In response to a question from the Chair of the Committee, Mr Parmar said:
	“However, we have some serious concerns about the drafting of the Bill and the impact it could have both financially and economically on our members”.
	He went on to say:
	“To give the Committee a feel for the figures, we have estimated that our members tend to dispose of around 20,000 trucks every year, so if we look at a typical fleet that is being disposed of being between band E, as proposed in the Bill, and band G, we believe that, under band E, with two months unused lorry road user fee available, the figure is around £1.06 million, and for band G it is £1.6 million. That is the amount that we would not be able to reclaim under the Bill, which would result in a loss of around £2.7 million each year to UK operators. That starts to give the scale of our concern.”––[Official Report, HGV Road User Levy Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2012; c. 35-36, Q87-88.]
	I am sure that the Minister has seen the correspondence received this week from the BVRLA, which says:
	“The BVRLA is fully supportive of the Bill’s key aims of creating a level playing field between UK and foreign hauliers and ensuring foreign operators make a fair contribution towards using UK roads. However, clause 7(3) will impose a new cost burden on UK owners as they will be restricted in the amount they are able to claim as a refund for the unused proportion of the levy. A vehicle owner today is able to obtain a VED refund without such a restriction when it is being sold or SORN’d”—
	a reference to an off-road notice, as the Minister knows. We had this exchange in Committee, so he is very familiar with this territory.
	Mr Parmar goes on to say:
	“To put our concerns into perspective, we estimate that our members alone stand to lose up to £2.7 million each year as a direct impact of the restrictive impact of clause 7(3). This cost impact will be greater if the entire affected UK HGV parc is taken into consideration.”
	Finally, he says:
	“We are unable to mitigate against this loss as the vehicle may be de-fleeted for a period of time before being able to find a buyer
	and when a new buyer is found, then due to market conditions, it is not possible to expect the buyer to pay towards the cost of any unused portion of the levy.”
	On 6 December in Committee, I moved amendment 4, a probing amendment that sought to delete subsection (5) of clause 7, which says:
	“The Secretary of State may specify conditions with which a person must comply before making an application for a rebate.”
	At that time, I had the pleasure of making reference to West Ham United’s great win against Chelsea. Sadly, West Ham has won only one game since we were in Committee, and the Minister knows how long ago that is, so it is not a matter of any satisfaction to me to remember that. This was the Minister’s response to the amendment:
	“It is important to retain subsection (5) for administrative purposes. It means that the Secretary of State…will be able to set conditions around making applications for rebates”.––[Official Report, HGV Road User Levy Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2012; c. 94.]
	With that reassurance, we withdrew the amendment, because the Minister had clearly said that the matter was covered. The BVRLA’s letter of this week supported our tabling that amendment. It remains concerned because it thinks that the British road haulage industry will take a £2.7 million hit. The ambition on both sides of the House is to help British road haulage against foreign competitors, and yet the BVRLA is still dissatisfied and unhappy with the Government’s response.
	Technically, the amendment may not address precisely the issue that the BVRLA wishes to address. However, it has continued to raise the issue of the £2.7 million deficit, and we are keen to hear what the Minister has to say on the matter.

Stephen Hammond: I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for tabling his amendment. I hope that I will be able to persuade him that it does not deal with the concerns raised by the BVRLA, which I should like also to address. I want to try to prove to him that his amendment would potentially, if we were not careful, give a free £200 to an awful lot of people. I hope he will agree with me on that. We discussed the point about clause 7 in Committee when the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) raised the issue of 10 monthly and 12 monthly payments.
	Removing clause 7(3) would remove the annual rebating formula and mean that all the rebates would be made under subsection (4), which applies to all periods of time over one month and less than one year. Under the European directive, the charges and rebating formula must be the same for both UK and foreign-registered vehicles.
	In selecting the charges for different time periods, we have chosen to offer the annual levy at a discount compared with the purchase of 12 monthly levy payments. That is also compatible with the Eurovignette directive, which states that the annual charge may be no less than 10 times the monthly charge.
	The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would not have its intended effect, which I believe is to ensure that UK hauliers would be able to claim the rebates in twelfths rather than tenths, as proposed by the Bill. As he has rightly pointed out, I am aware of what the BVRLA has
	put together. It has been lobbying for a change to the calculation because at the moment it estimates that a UK operator could incur a small loss when it delicenses a vehicle—typically when it is sold—compared with the existing rebating regime for vehicle excise duty, which rebates in twelfths. The BVRLA has identified that a small extra cost to operators could be introduced by the way in which the levy is rebated compared with how VED is rebated.
	Currently, when a vehicle is delicensed—typically when it is sold—the previous owner can claim back the outstanding whole months of VED, with the rebate calculation done in twelfths. From the introduction of the levy in 2014, UK operators will only be able to reclaim VED on the same basis that the levy can be reclaimed, namely in tenths. Setting the annual rate at 10 times the monthly rate complies with EU law and will maximise the revenue from the monthly charges. That means, in effect, that it is discounted when compared with the cost of the 12 monthly levy charges.
	The decision to offer rebates in tenths was made, as I explained in Committee and as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, to prevent foreign hauliers from paying for a year, using a vehicle for a month and then reclaiming 11 months. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would have the effect—although this is not its intent—of removing that.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I accept the explanation about tenths and twelfths and that we do not want to give an advantage to foreign hauliers, but the question that was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk has still clearly not been answered to the satisfaction of the BVRLA. When someone surrenders VED—a tax disc—they can claim back, but if a vehicle is off the road while it is in the process of being sold—which could take two or three months—and is accruing the levy charge, can that be claimed back? If it can, I think that will answer the problem.

Stephen Hammond: I hope that I am about to address exactly that point. I welcome the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk to his place, because he raised the point about the levy rebate, which I hope my opening remarks have addressed.
	The BVLRA estimates that rebating the charge in tenths rather than twelfths might cost its members, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse has said, up to £2.7 million a year. That estimate is on the high side, to say the least, because the BVRLA assumes that half the refunds would be for vehicles in the most expensive levy band, whereas, in fact, only 4% of the UK fleet is in that band. Most UK vehicles—83%—are in bands costing between 36% and 65% less. I would therefore question whether the cost is as high as estimated.
	The BVRLA also assumes that all refunds are claimed in the 10th month of the VED cycle for each vehicle, which is a worst-case scenario. In fact, there is a peak in vehicle disposals at around month three or four of the cycle, reflecting the fact that vehicles are often purchased in September and sold in January, to deal with Christmas business. The loss for any vehicle at this point is some 60% or 70% less than the worst-case figure.
	We estimate that most vehicles will lose in the region of between £30 and £50 when delicensed. That is not a regular event, but it would happen, for example, when a
	vehicle is sold. The loss therefore needs to be set in the context of the vehicle’s whole lifetime, which can be about 10 years. For example, a typical vehicle that lasts 10 years and is sold twice during that period at a typical stage in the VED-levy cycle would incur between £60 and £100 in rebate costs over its life, because the loss is incurred only when the vehicle is sold or delicensed for other reasons. That cost equates to about £6 a year. Operators can avoid that cost by selling the vehicle taxed or by disposing of it only at the end of the VED-levy cycle so that there is no amount to reclaim.
	As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse said, the BVRLA gave oral evidence to the Committee and raised this point, but it did not give it the prominence that it has been given subsequently. I am pleased that we have been able to discuss it today because it did not feature in our discussion about levy rebates. I am pleased that I have been able to clear the point up. The BVRLA could have submitted written evidence on this point to the Committee, but it did not. It is helpful that it has been raised by way of amendment this afternoon.

Michael Connarty: The point I raised on instinct, on looking at the Bill, was that this was not a level playing field between those who come into the UK and pay the levy, and those who are in the UK and pay duty and now the levy. Although the Minister has said that the loss will be 70% less than the worst-case scenario and only about £6, it is still not a level playing field. There will be a loss for the leasing companies in the UK. The companies say that the loss will be £2.7 million a year. If it is 70% of £2.7 million a year, it is still a large hit for British business.

Stephen Hammond: As I have said, the figure of £2.7 million is predicated on half the vehicles in the fleet being in the largest band, whereas only 4% are in that band. There will be a very small loss, if there is a loss at all. The £2.7 million figure is clearly an overestimate.
	I seek to persuade the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse that under the amendment, all rebating would be done under clause 7(4), which is designed for shorter periods of time than one year. Rebating the annual levy under that subsection would not resolve the tenths versus twelfths issue, but it would allow some foreign operators to drive on the UK’s roads for free for up to two months when they purchase an annual levy. That is because, as we discussed in Committee, they would be able to claim a rebate for whole outstanding months at the monthly levy rate, rather than at the discounted rate.
	As well as the potential for free use of the roads, a further consequence of using clause 7(4) as the rebating mechanism would be to allow anyone to make a claim for more than they had paid, without ever driving on the UK’s roads. For example, if an operator purchased a levy starting at a future point in time, say 1 February, and immediately asked for a rebate, they would be able to claim 12 times the monthly rate because the levy period would not have started. That would contrast with the actual cost of the 12-month levy, which is discounted to 10 times the monthly rate.
	The consequential amendments would mean that clause 7(4) could also be used for annual rebating and would remove the references to clause 7(3) in clause 7(8), which deals with the level of the rebate. Given the
	unintended consequences of providing updates only through clause 7(4), and given the relatively small value of the typical loss, which is incurred only if the vehicle is delicensed or sold, we do not propose to change the rebating formula from tenths to twelfths.
	I will keep the situation under review. I hope that with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse will withdraw the amendment.

Jim Fitzpatrick: We are very grateful to the Minister for his response. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) raised this matter strongly in Committee. We supported the inquiry by the BVRLA because this seemed to be an issue that was slipping through the cracks. The Minister reassured us in Committee. He has said solidly that he will keep the matter under review. We do not want to see this develop into a disadvantage for British road haulage.
	Given the assurances that the Minister has reaffirmed today, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Third Reading

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	As the House knows, this Bill introduces a new levy for all heavy goods vehicles that weigh 12 tonnes or more and that are kept on, or use, the UK road network. The levy is aimed at recognising the damage that HGVs do to our roads, so that a contribution is made for that.
	The Bill has, I am pleased to say, enjoyed cross-party support as it has proceeded through the Ways and Means motion, Second Reading, Committee and now—I hope—Third Reading. With some exceptions and questions it has been broadly welcomed by industry, with agreement on the fundamental point that vehicles that use and cause wear to our roads should make a payment to take account of that. The HGV road user levy will, for the first time, require foreign-registered HGVs to make a contribution to the costs of maintaining the road network that they use.
	Subject to the Bill being passed in the House today, although the financial burden of road maintenance will be largely borne by UK taxpayers, from April 2014 it will no longer fall solely to them. Our intention is for the levy to apply to all categories of public road in the UK, and to UK and foreign-registered HGVs equally. The Government plan to implement the levy from April 2014 for UK and foreign-registered hauliers, and I am working to ensure that the process to procure and develop the necessary vehicle payment systems is completed. That is being done to a short time scale, but as I stated in Committee, I am confident it can be achieved.
	As stated in previous discussions, UK hauliers will pay the levy in a single transaction with vehicle excise duty—VED—when it is renewed from April 2014. Foreign hauliers do not currently contribute to road maintenance through a vignette or other form of payment, even though such charges are common in other countries and our hauliers pay them when they use roads overseas. Foreign-registered hauliers who have long enjoyed an advantage over our own haulage industry will now have
	that advantage removed. All main parties have wanted to introduce a measure to correct that imbalance for many years, and I am delighted that this Bill, which will go a long way towards addressing it, is receiving its Third Reading.
	HGVs play a crucial role in our economy by supplying businesses and servicing consumers. More than two thirds of goods moved within the UK travel by road on an HGV. It is estimated that foreign hauliers make around 1.5 million trips in the UK annually, and the levy will ensure that they pay a fair amount when they use UK roads, and increase opportunities for UK hauliers in international trade.
	As colleagues in the House may be aware, any form of road user charge is subject to strict conditions set out in the Eurovignette directive, in which the maximum daily charge is specified as €11, which is likely to rise to €12 by 2014 to compensate for inflation. By that stage it will equate to about £10 per day, which is what we intend to charge to the largest foreign vehicles that use roads in the UK. I recognise that many trips by foreign hauliers last longer than one day, so they will also be able to pay the levy for different periods—daily, weekly, monthly or annually, for up to one year. For the largest vehicles, the annual charge will be £1,000, and proportionately less for the smallest vehicles. Overall, most vehicles that come to the UK are in the heaviest two bands.
	The Government have estimated that the revenue gained by charging foreign hauliers will probably be between £18.7 million and £23.2 million annually. I appreciate—this was discussed in Committee at some length—that that may not be an enormous sum in the grand scheme of things, and I am sure some of my colleagues would like it to be higher, but the levy is set at the highest level allowed by the Eurovignette directive. Other measures—principally the reduction in VED—mean that nine out of 10 UK vehicles will pay no more than they do now. That will ensure a fairer deal for UK-registered HGV operators, who should not, and will not, have to bear an additional financial burden as a result of the levy. As we have announced previously, details of vehicle excise duty will given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in due course.
	With those brief comments, I hope that the House supports the Third Reading of the Bill.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I delighted that I have been joined on the Opposition Front Bench by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), and by the newest member of the shadow transport team, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue).
	Despite the previous debate, this is a good Bill, and the Opposition welcome it, as we did on Second Reading. I commended the coalition for introducing it to support British haulage, and I commend the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who was the architect of the Bill—he built on that which Labour left him when it left office. It is clear from pre-legislative scrutiny and debates in Committee that the Bill has cross-party and cross-industry support.
	The Opposition raised a number of issues in Committee: hypothecation, visible evidence of payment, rebates, meandering Irish cross-border roads—an issue covered by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others—and road safety. We also dealt with the Bill’s timetable, enforcement and reduced pollution certificates. On all those issues, I am happy to say that the Minister was able to respond so positively and provide enough reassurance that none of the amendments we tabled was pressed to a Division. It is to the credit of the Minister and his officials that they responded so positively to the probing to which we exposed them. He reassured both sides of the Committee that the Bill should be supported.
	I should make one or two brief comments on the issues we have raised. The Minister made a stout philosophical defence against hypothecation, and the Opposition could not argue against it because we too would have opposed hypothecation. He therefore made a lot of sense when he said that hypothecation was not an appropriate way forward.
	On enforcement and the question of using some of the money as supplementary funds for the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, the Minister reassured us on his confidence in the system. We have moved on a lot—we have the success of the congestion charge in London and the technology for automatic number plate recognition cameras—and the Committee was reassured that we have the technology to ensure that the system works.
	The one question on which those on both sides of the House have raised concerns was road safety and the disproportionate number of crashes caused by foreign vehicles. Perhaps the Bill will deter some foreign hauliers from coming to the UK, which might in turn reduce the number of crashes caused by foreign hauliers. In that respect, the Bill will have an impact on road safety.
	The Opposition also raised the question of giving a tokenistic measure of support for road safety. We suggested using some of the money raised—either from fines or the levy—for road safety purposes. It was suggested that The Times cycling campaign, which has been championed by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State and other hon. Members, was an appropriate campaign to benefit from the levy. That was clearly not going to happen, but we considered it and demonstrated cross-party support for the campaign and for road safety in general, and so indicated that we need to maintain our rigour in respect of trying to reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. This measure ought to help in that regard.
	The Bill is a good Bill. It will make a contribution to rebalancing the playing field for UK hauliers. The previous Government should have introduced it. I discussed the matter with the Treasury Minister responsible at the time, and he too could not work out why we did not introduce it. I assume it was too late in our legislative cycle. That is slightly embarrassing, but Labour has none the less supported the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, as we support it on Third Reading.
	We appreciate the efforts of officials and my hon. Friends who supported the official Opposition in Committee. We also appreciate the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of the Select Committee on Transport—she was in the Chamber on Second Reading and is here
	again on Third Reading—whose Committee helped in our deliberations. We want the Bill to make progress and are pleased we are debating it today.

Neil Parish: I very much welcome the Bill. I understand that the Minister is bound by the vignette-type legislation from Europe, which means that we can charge a maximum of €11 a day, and in the future we must look to increase that significantly. Someone running a heavy goods vehicle from France is helped significantly by the fact that the diesel is 10p to 20p a litre cheaper. A lorry coming over here can have a couple of tanks of diesel on it and deliver goods all over the country using it—so there is still a very big advantage to be had. Moreover, a British lorry using motorways all the way to the south of France will have to pay nearly €1,000 for a return trip at the péages. It is bad enough with a domestic car, let alone the charges for an HGV.
	This is a good start to making the playing field more level, and I recognise that the shadow Minister was graceful in accepting that it should have been done on Labour’s watch. I am glad that he supports the Bill. I welcome the Bill, but our hauliers have suffered greatly over the years from unfair competition, with lower-priced fuel coming across in the lorries, which then do a lot of business in this country because they can outbid our hauliers. I look forward to seeing this levy rise substantially.
	I have one final point. Many foreign lorries that come over here seem to have a sat-nav system for domestic cars, and they end up going down some of our rural roads, taking out bridges and walls—even cottages. It is very hard to reverse those huge HGVs when they have gone down a tiny country lane or through a very small village. That also needs to be looked at seriously.

Louise Ellman: I, too, welcome the Bill and I agree that it has been a long time coming. The Transport Committee first looked at this issue midway through the last Parliament, which is quite a few years ago. We continued in the present Session, and we looked at the issue in two ways. First, we looked at it in relation to the haulage industry, including fair treatment of and fair competition for the British haulage industry. Secondly, we looked at it in relation to road safety. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has said, we noted the high proportion of accidents caused by lorries from the continent. We attributed that to lower safety standards, and noted issues that we felt needed to be addressed and action that should be taken.
	The Transport Committee in the last Parliament certainly shared the frustration that no action was taken. It did appear at one stage that a Bill would be brought forward on the subject, but it did not happen. I am pleased that the matter has been taken up in this Parliament. It is important that the Bill should have been looked at in such detail in Committee, and it is stronger as a result. I give it my full support, and to those who question the worth of Select Committees, I say that it might have taken at least two Parliaments and many years, but we have got there in the end.

Alan Reid: I, too, join the welcome for the Bill from both sides of the House. Until now, foreign-registered lorries using our roads have not paid anything towards their construction or maintenance, whereas UK hauliers pay tolls and other charging schemes when they travel around the rest of Europe. Clearly, foreign vehicles cause a lot of wear and tear to our roads on the approximately 1.5 million trips they make to the UK each year, and it is not right that the UK taxpayer has to foot the Bill for all of that wear and tear. The Bill will change that by introducing a levy on all heavy goods vehicles. For the first time, foreign-registered hauliers will make a contribution towards the wear and tear they cause to our roads.
	The introduction of the levy will help to level the playing field between UK hauliers and those from the European mainland. I accept that, because of the European directive that limits the daily charge to €11, the effects of the Bill will be limited, but it is still a welcome step in the right direction and I hope that the €11 limit will be increased significantly in the future. I also welcome the Government’s intention to make consequential reductions in vehicle excise duty to ensure a fair deal for UK HGV drivers. It has been estimated that 94% of UK hauliers will pay no more than they do under the present arrangements.
	From a constituency point of view, I welcome the Government’s decision to exempt islands’ goods vehicles—goods vehicles restricted to working on a small island—from the levy. Given the appalling state of the roads on the small islands in my constituency, it would not be right to impose on them the same levy as for those using motorways on the mainland—that aspect of the Bill is certainly fair.
	The Bill has gone through the House without amendment—indeed, without any Divisions—so I am sure that Third Reading will be unopposed. I wish it a speedy passage through the Lords.

Michael Connarty: I want to raise a couple of issues just to put them on the record. We have had a debate, and eventually an agreement, not to press any of the worthy amendments to a vote. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said, the Bill has been a long time in gestation, going back to our time in office. People wanted to see something done, a point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and felt strongly that there was an imbalance and a disadvantage to the UK haulage business for many reasons, including diesel prices and the lack of any contribution to our road network.
	Some of the points that have been raised are sound. Kent county council made an excellent contribution to the argument for hypothecation on the basis that a large percentage of the vehicles coming into the UK use its road system that it then has to maintain. Given that the Government are now in the ludicrous position of rate-capping every council—they call it council tax freezing; it is rate capping—the money available to Kent through the normal levy powers is diminishing, so it was looking to see whether this measure would bring some money
	into its coffers to help it to maintain its roads. However, we are told that it will all go into the Consolidated Fund—into the back pocket of the Treasury.
	A colleague from the north-east of England made a good case for the need to upgrade the poor quality roads in the north-east of England. The point was made very well that to drive from Scotland to Tyneside, a major European hub for roll-on/roll-off transport and tourism, one drives down what is virtually a country road for about 20 or 30 miles. I have done that journey and can verify that feeling of having lost one’s way because there is no decent road network leading to that major port. I can see why hypothecation would make a lot of sense. I made a bid for hypothecation for a major bridge project in Avon gorge in my constituency, a choke point where accidents happen all the time. It was decided, however, that there would be no hypothecation.
	I still question the decision that the money raised should all go to the Consolidated Fund. There are two points about that. One of those points is to level the playing field up in terms of making charges on those from abroad who use the roads, and who at the moment do not do pay. However, everyone who gave evidence from the Freight Transport Association made a bid for some, if not all, of that money to be put into the road network. The idea that some of that money will go into the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and some into registration recognition cameras is a small point in policing, but that does not raise the quality of the road network, which is what the transport companies were speaking about.
	The question we need to ask over the years is whether the money going into the Consolidated Fund comes out at the other end so as to benefit the road user in any way, particularly heavy goods vehicles, which deliver goods to the shops, homes and companies in this country. That is one question that I leave to be considered over time. It should be looked at in the review that the Minister kindly offered during the debate on the amendments. I like the idea of reviews, because although I am sure the Bill is grand and well thought through, there is always the law of unintended consequences to be taken into account.
	The second thing I want to address is the question dealt with by our amendments today. In reading the Bill, one thing was clear to me. I do not know the kind of transport detail that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and others seem to know—including, possibly, the Chair of the Transport Committee—but I have a large number of heavy goods vehicle depots in my constituency, in and around Grangemouth, which is the only recognised totally inter-modal hub in Scotland. It has road, rail and a major shipping port—the biggest container base in Scotland. People tell me that cashing in their HGV licence at particular times can be sensible business; the problem now is that they have to work out how to cash it in at the same time as not losing money on the levy. I know that the Minister said that the figure of £2.7 million that the leasing companies gave us was high—possibly every vehicle had to be in the worst category, and so on. The point I was asking about was the principle and what, on first look, I thought was a dislocation between the fact that someone who does not come into the UK and does not pay their levy—because
	they are not coming in—faces a zero sum and the fact that someone with a British-registered vehicle who pays the levy but cashes it in at the wrong time will be out of pocket.
	The Minister says the figure turns out to be only £6 a year. That may be the case, and that may all right for the industry. However, the industry would not have rung the alarm bells—it perhaps rang a bigger bell that it should have—if it had not felt that there was some justification being made for the concept of placing an imposition on UK hauliers. That was not the point of the Bill; the point was to place an imposition entirely on non-British-registered vehicles coming into the country. If, as a consequence, we put an imposition on what is an already very burdensome industry to work in, with the cost of diesel and all the regulations that have to be faced—I get it all the time, and I sympathise with Malcolm’s, Russell’s and all the others based in my constituency who tell me they carry small amounts, but over a large number of vehicles and a large number of trips, which makes them uncompetitive compared with others coming into the country—we will have failed in what we set out to do. We set out to level the playing field up, not push UK road hauliers up a bit further so that they do not bridge the gap to the point intended by the levy.
	We need to ensure that the review is a serious promise from the Minister—that he will look at the consequences and at the figures at the end of the year, and that every year he will talk to the people in the road haulage industry and see whether we have got it right. I commend him and his team for bringing the Bill forward. I know it is difficult—I know it was difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse when we were in government to do this—and he has marched a long mile. I just hope that he will continue seriously to review the unintended consequences of the clauses that we were concerned about and that, at the end of the day, if they need amending, he will come back and amend them on the Floor of the House.

Andrew Bingham: I, too, commend the Minister and the Government for bringing this Bill forward. I fear that it will be lost in the media tomorrow, given the previous business in the Chamber today. However, the wider population would welcome the Bill. When I speak to hauliers across my constituency, I know that they are grateful for the freezing of fuel duty, but this Bill starts levelling the playing field up.
	I hear what the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said about hypothecation and Kent, and all the rest of it, but I would make this argument. People might think that the High Peak is a little rural backwater, but believe you me, they probably all walk, sit and drive on the limestone that comes from our area. If we are going to hypothecate, which I do not think we should, I would argue for more money because our roads get so much stick from the wagons that carry that limestone.

Michael Connarty: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I support him on that point, because the roads are in a terrible state throughout the whole country.

Andrew Bingham: That was what we inherited in 2010, but we will do what we can.
	I welcome the proposals, as I have said. We have lots of haulage in the High Peak. I know that the local quarries try to use rail when they can, but road is the best option because of the rurality of the area. I see more and more foreign wagons coming in and out. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who is no longer in his place, made the point about foreign wagons not following their sat-navs. On Saturday night, I was trying to get through part of my constituency and, lo and behold, a huge wagon was blocking the road for the umpteenth time. It had got stuck under a low bridge, and the driver had probably not seen the road signs. That seems remarkable to me, as Derbyshire county council does everything it can to divert those wagons, but it still does not seem to work. The big operators in the High Peak, many of which have dozens of wagons, and even the small owner-operators who cart stone will welcome the measures, given the amount of foreign wagons that are coming in. This is all about supporting our local British businesses, and the Bill goes some way towards doing that.
	I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton about what we can charge. I would like to charge more, provided that the discount on vehicle excise duty was available for our own wagon drivers, and I hope that one day we will be able to do so. We shall have to see how the EU goes on that one. There is unfair competition at the moment, and the foreign wagons have the advantage, which is wrong. When our wagons go across to Europe, the drivers have to pay road tolls. That applies, for example, to those who drive the length of France, unless they avoid the main autoroutes. These measures are trying to straighten some of that out. As I have said, I would like to see the maximum charge increased if possible. We have also talked about the damage to the roads. Those wagons are big, and many of us will have had people come into our surgeries to complain about the noise of them going past at all times of the day.
	I welcome the Bill. We had a good Committee stage, with quite a few amendments and some good discussions. It was quite a pleasant Committee to be on, actually. I applaud the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. I will resist the temptation to go on about how nothing happened for 13 years, but I have got it on the record anyway. I thank the Minister and everyone involved in the Committee. Let us now bring it on and get the measures up and running by next April, or as soon as we can. I can assure the Minister that I am not saying all these nice words just to get my by-pass, but will he bear it in mind? Thank you.

Jim Shannon: I should also like to thank all the Committee members, the Minister and the shadow Minister for working together so well to get this Bill through. It is always good to see positive work coming out of the House. We all like to see that happen, and this is a good example of it. The House can be proud of this good work.
	I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland in which road transport is, to put it simply, the key to the economy. It is also the key to the economy of Northern
	Ireland. The Freight Transport Association and the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association have collectively expressed concern about clause 7(3), which deals with the cost burden. They felt that there had been a clear undertaking that there would be no extra costs for UK hauliers. The FTA has stated that there will be a cost of some £2.7 million, but I understand that the Minister has given an assurance that that figure has been greatly overestimated. If that is the case, it will be good news. I hope that he can give us confirmation of that, and reassure the FTA and the BVRLA that the provisions will not adversely affect their industry. It will be important to get such an assurance on the record in
	Hansard
	, because the people out there who contact us will want to know the final word on the matter.
	The FTA has identified three issues
	“where current details are sparse or under review and where further consultation is expected”,
	and I would like the Minister to give us some clarification on them. The first point is that the arrangements for the operation of the levy in Northern Ireland involve the only UK land border with another EU member state. The second point is about compensation arrangements for holders of RPCs—reduced pollution certificates—which will be withdrawn following the introduction of the levy. The third point is about the mitigation of the disproportionate increase in charges for operators of 2x2 axle, 28-tonne articulated vehicles—commonly referred to as “urban artics”—used for deliveries to pubs and retail stores in town and city centres. I ask this question because I have some of them in my constituency, and I suspect that other Members will have them in their constituencies as well. We are not being awkward; we are just looking for the necessary clarification. I am sure that the Minister will give us the reassurance we need in his response.
	It is not often that all the political parties work together to initiate legislation on behalf of an industry. There seems to be a real willingness to make sure that it all happens—for my constituents in Strangford and for those involved in the freight trade business. There are many of them. I wish to represent them at the highest level in this House. I therefore seek reassurances from the Minister.

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to join the voices welcoming this Bill. I remember that when I was elected, the very first oral question I was selected to ask about was on this very topic. Sadly, it was too far down the Order Paper to get heard that day, but we are now three years on and we have finally tackled this problem. It is a big issue when haulage businesses small and large feel that there is unfair competition whereby overseas hauliers can use our roads without paying anything. As we heard earlier, they sometimes do not even buy fuel over here, while our hauliers pay a large amount of money. I think this Bill takes us towards the fairness whereby those who use our services and our roads should pay for them. The Government could do further work in different areas to get to the same place, but that is not for today’s debate.
	My view is that vehicle excise duty has had its day, and that its long-established purpose is now usurped by different ways of enforcement. We could move to a
	stage where we do not need the duty and have a separate charge for all hauliers to use our roads. That would probably be a lot easier to administer than the scheme we are going to end up with, but I guess that the Minister will say that it is a Treasury decision so we cannot get into it today, but I think that is the direction in which we should travel.
	I have never been a fan of hypothecation, but I see logic in using this revenue to address some of the issues affecting our main trunk roads. If someone happens to live near them and is blighted by the noise and the pollution, that presents a real problem, and there has been a lack of money to deal with it. I have two sites on the A38 in Amber Valley, which are down as priority sites for noise remediation work. Unfortunately, that means that it will not actually happen until something like 2020, so this money could be used to accelerate that sort of work. The Minister is more than welcome to come and hear how much noise is created. I think it would be a positive step to say, “It is lorries that cause that noise; here is some extra revenue taken from lorries; let us tackle that issue.” That could take away the blight from which nearby residents suffer.
	Overall, I give this measure a warm welcome. It is long overdue. I look forward to April 2014 when we will start to see it in place. I wish the Minister all the best for getting in place everything that he needs to progress the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: With the leave of the House, I would like to make a few concluding remarks and to respond to some of the points made in the debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) made the case, as did several other Members, about the size of the fee charged. As I have explained earlier on Third Reading, on the Ways and Means motion and on Second Reading, we are limited to what level of fee we can charge. I am sure that we will, as with other aspects of the Bill, keep it under review. My hon. Friend went down the line of suggesting that sat-navs be used for HGVs, but I am going to leave that issue for another day.
	I welcome the support of hon. Members across the House, and I particularly welcome the support of the Chairman of the Select Committee and the points she made about road safety. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) mentioned those reports, too, and I think road safety is one issue that has cross-party support, with all of us determined to continue the UK’s good record on road safety and never to be complacent about it. We all want to see it continually improving.
	I remember that I was glad in Committee to satisfy some of the concerns of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) about some parts of his community. I also noted his plea for a higher charge.
	I was not entirely surprised to hear the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) refer to the Tory Chancellor’s back pocket, as he had used the same phrase several times in Committee. Although
	he expressed sympathy for Kent, he will be unsurprised to learn that I have little. If it were to exchange its proportion of these sums for a hypothecated amount, it would be considerably less than the Chancellor made available for local road maintenance in the autumn statement, and continues to make available.
	However, the hon. Gentleman was right in saying that I had promised to bear in mind the views of the BVRLA. I understand the concern that the organisation has expressed about size, but the analysis shows that the number of vehicles likely to be affected is relatively small. Even when the “urban artics” mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) are taken into account, it is clear that 98% of the fleet in the United Kingdom will be less than £50 worse off. In fact, very few people will be worse off as a result of the Bill.
	I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) enjoyed the experience of serving on the Committee. I think that it was an enjoyable experience, although I am not sure that all Bill Committees are quite as enjoyable or, indeed, give Bills such a speedy passage. I am glad that my hon. Friend did not press the point that he raised on Second Reading about the Mottram-Tintwistle bypass. I know that the Highways Agency owes him a letter, and I have chased that up today. He will receive letters from both the agency and me, but no promise that the bypass will necessarily arrive.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) may not have been able to ask the oral question that he had tabled, but he certainly made his points eloquently this afternoon, and I thank him for his contribution.
	The hon. Member for Strangford raised a couple of issues that we also considered in Committee. Our discussions about criss-crossing of the border continue, but I am convinced that we shall reach a satisfactory conclusion with the Government of southern Ireland. As for the small “urban artics”, the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that although some are in lighter weight categories, they often have fewer axles and are therefore disproportionately damaging to the network.
	Vehicles with reduced pollution certificates pay lower rates of VED. Because some are paying the minimum levels set by the Commission, we cannot reduce the levels further. Our solution is to change the nature of the benefit provided for vehicles holding RPCs. In future, such vehicles will receive a grant to the current value of the VED discount. I hope that that addresses the concerns expressed by the Freight Transport Association.
	I thank all Members who have taken part in our informed, constructive debates, not just this afternoon but throughout the Bill’s earlier stages. I also reiterate my thanks to the Chairmen of the Committee and the Clerks who supported it. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse for acknowledging that the Bill deserved all-party support. His scrutiny was constructive and sensible, and I was delighted to have his support for the Bill. I wish it a speedy passage.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Parental Leave (EU Directive) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 18 December 2012, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Rating and Valuation

That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 8 January, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Dangerous Drugs

That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 8 January, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Defence Procurement

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 14596/12, a Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on transposition of Directive 2009/81/EC on Defence and Security Procurement; notes the Government’s approach in the timely implementation of the Directive; and
	further supports the Government’s proactive engagement with the Commission and our European Allies in the development of a ‘Comprehensive strategy for the defence sector’ while protecting national security interests.
	—(Greg Hands.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Home to School transport

Roberta Blackman-Woods: First, may I congratulate two of my constituents, Michelle Bainbridge and Stephen Guy, on running such an excellent campaign in Sherburn village against the home to school transport arrangements, and on discovering that the problem lay not with the local authority, Durham county council, but with national legislation? I also thank them for introducing this petition, which has attracted hundreds of signatures.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Durham,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Home to School Transport Guidance and Education Act 1996 does not make adequate provision for children travelling safely to and from school and that it should be amended to set a new statutory threshold of 2 miles to access free school transport; to properly define a safe route to school as one that considers issues of lighting topography, degree of isolation and other relevant matters and defines a safe route as one that can be walked safely by secondary school aged children without being accompanied by an adult.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to amend the Home to School Transport Guidance and Education Act 1996 accordingly and ensure that all households in receipt of any earnings replacement or means tested benefit or tax credits shall have access to free home school transport.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001153]

EPILEPSY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Greg Hands.)

Kate Hoey: I thank Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate, which serves to give the relevant Minister—who I am pleased to see has just arrived in the Chamber; perhaps I rose to speak a little too quickly—an opportunity to update us on how some of the changes to the health service locally and nationally, such as in respect of commissioning, will help to improve the lives of those who suffer from epilepsy.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) secured a Westminster Hall debate on epilepsy in November 2011 and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) introduced an excellent ten-minute rule Bill on epilepsy in November 2010. I am pleased to see that the chair of the all-party group on epilepsy, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), is present.
	As is the case for all Members, hundreds of my constituents suffer from epilepsy, and I am grateful to many of them for their input into this debate. I am especially grateful to Ashleah Skinner, who has a great deal of knowledge of and interest in epilepsy and disability issues. No one understands the difficulties and challenges that face epileptics better than those who suffer from the illness.
	For the record, I should point out that epilepsy is defined as a tendency to have recurrent seizures, sometimes called fits. The seizure is caused by a sudden burst of excess electrical activity in the brain, causing a temporary disruption of the normal messages passing between brain cells. Epilepsy is, of course, not one condition but a composite of about 40 different types of seizure and up to 50 different syndromes.
	An epilepsy diagnosis can be a shattering blow to the individual concerned. All sorts of things that have been taken for granted are no longer automatic: they might lose their driving licence, for instance, or their employment, which might in turn lead to benefit dependency. Approximately 600,000 people have epilepsy, which is about one in 100 people, and every day about 87 people are diagnosed with it, which amounts to 32,000 each year.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this very important health issue to the Floor of the House. One other issue relating to epilepsy that my constituents raise with me is holiday insurance. Does she think we should be doing more about that, whether directly with the insurance companies, with the overall body or with individuals?

Kate Hoey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I know of his continuing interest in this issue and the contributions he has made in the House. If we were to get into a discussion about insurance and travel, I could talk a great deal about the discrimination that some travel companies display, and obviously he has particular expertise in this issue. Such discrimination is all part of a lack of understanding and knowledge of
	epilepsy among the general public, which runs through this whole debate. That perhaps applies to travel companies as well.
	About 1,150 people a year die from epilepsy, with three dying every day, and about 40% of all these deaths and 59% of the childhood deaths are potentially avoidable. However, the new research shows that the level of epilepsy mortality is rising. Achieving absence of seizure—freedom from seizure—is key to saving lives and saving money, as well over 100,000 people are living with avoidable seizures. Just last week, Epilepsy Action, one of the important charities within the Joint Epilepsy Council, which brings together all the campaign groups on epilepsy, published a new report “A Critical Time for Epilepsy in England”. Its launch was hosted in the House of Commons by the all-party group on epilepsy, which is chaired by the hon. Member for South Thanet. I recommend the report to anyone who wishes to find out more about what more needs to be done.
	Between April and September 2012—the report is very up to date—Epilepsy Action carried out a survey of clinical commissioning groups, acute trusts, local authorities and people with epilepsy. I have read the report and it backs up a number of the trends that I have heard about and a number of the concerns that individual constituents have raised with me.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Hoey: I will. We have slightly more time tonight, although I know that perhaps not all Members here want to stay until 7 pm.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Lady for her graciousness in giving way again. Some 20,000 people in Northern Ireland have epilepsy, which is one in every 90 people. Does she feel, as I do, that the immensity of the scale of epilepsy in the population is unknown? How can we raise that profile and make more people aware of what is happening?

Kate Hoey: I was pleased to see just how much discussion there had been in the House of Commons on this issue, and it is crucial that we, as individual MPs, raise it more with our local authorities, health acute trusts, hospitals and GPs, as understanding is so important in this matter.

Laura Sandys: rose—

Kate Hoey: I of course give way to the chair of the all-party group.

Laura Sandys: It is excellent that the hon. Lady was able to secure this debate, particularly in the light of the recent report. As an epileptic, I find that one of the issues we face is that although the condition affects half a million people there is a stigma around it, and that has stopped clinicians and society in general addressing the underlying issues we face. It is incredibly important that we have this sort of debate and ensure that we are more public about what epilepsy is if we are to give it the right level of attention.

Kate Hoey: I thank the hon. Lady for that. She, along with the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who unfortunately could not be here today and who has also raised this issue as an epileptic, has shown that it is very important that the public
	understand that people can have epilepsy and still carry on living a normal life—if being a Member of Parliament is indeed a normal life.

Bob Stewart: I have dealt with epileptics who have collapsed in front of me and had a fit. Does the hon. Lady think that we are doing all we can to educate our children at school how to recognise epilepsy and, just as important, what to do with someone who is suffering a fit?

Kate Hoey: Although things may have improved, the position in education authorities across the country is patchy. I hope that the Minister might refer to that in his speech.
	I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South, who introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on this matter, is now in her place. I know that she will want to say something at some stage.
	I referred to the Epilepsy Action report, and it is important that people look at it because it showed some worrying results. I am sure that the Minister will have read it. Two thirds of the clinical commissioning groups—66%—do not have or do not intend to produce a written needs assessment of the health and social care needs of people with epilepsy. Only 27% of the 113 out of 149 local authorities that replied included a section in their joint strategic needs assessment mentioning the care of people with epilepsy. Only 17% of the clinical commissioning groups have appointed a clinical lead for epilepsy and only 20% of acute trusts stated that the average waiting time for an adult with suspected epilepsy to see an epilepsy specialist consultant was two weeks or less.
	Crucially, only half of the people interviewed by Epilepsy Action told the interviewer that they had seen an epilepsy specialist nurse. I cannot overestimate the importance of specialist epilepsy nurses, and I am sure that other hon. Members will agree. Specialist nurses are vital and there is still concern that there are not enough of them. In its guidance, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said that they should be an integral part of the medical team providing care to people with epilepsy, but it seems that in 2013 half of our acute trusts and primary care trusts in England still do not have that provision.
	The report contains many more worrying statistics, but I shall not go through them all. All in all, however, there seems to have been no major improvement in services although I stress that, as with so many other matters, the provision is patchy, with some excellent services in some parts of the country. My local trust, Guy’s and St Thomas’, does an excellent job with the resources it has. Dr Michael Koutroumanidis leads the team and as well as running the tertiary clinic runs a first-time seizure clinic once a week. Much more could be done, however, with more resources and if greater priority were given to those services.
	I have some questions for the Minister. If he has read the report, perhaps as his bedtime reading last night, he will be aware of some of them. Will he ask the Secretary of State for Health to refer the whole of epilepsy services to the National Audit Office and invite it to conduct a value-for-money inquiry? That is one of the key requests from Epilepsy Action. Way back in 2007, the all-party group estimated that the avoidable cost of
	providing the current poor NHS service was £189 million a year based on the NICE figures. The main reason that such money could be seen as wasted is the shocking misdiagnosis rate, which is 20% to 30%, and the poor access to specialist skills. The financial consequence is that patients receive inappropriate, costly and ineffective treatment at the expense of the NHS and the public, never mind the personal consequences of their true condition not being treated. I hope that the Minister can say that that might be a useful piece of work for the Audit Commission.
	I ask the Minister to ask the NHS Commissioning Board to include outcomes indicators in the NHS framework. I hope that people can get to the bottom of what all these terminologies mean. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has previously referred to the NHS using terms that mean little to the average member of the public, but it is important that we have the statistics to address the unacceptable number of avoidable deaths and the still unacceptable rates of seizure freedom.
	Another issue that I want to ask the Minister about is the revised NHS constitution, where the word “pledge” will be used. We want to give people the right to involvement in discussions about the planning of their care and the right, as opposed to a pledge, to be offered a written record of that agreement. Again, published research shows that only 14% of people will epilepsy have a care plan. All those things are important. If the current review of the NHS constitution recommends making care planning a pledge from the NHS to patients, that should be toughened up to encourage a programme of care planning and by making it a right for people.
	The Minister could ensure that as a matter of urgency the chief executive of the NHS raises the lack of engagement by the clinical commissioning groups in assessing the needs of people with epilepsy. It seems that that has been ignored by many of them, or lumped together with a number of other health issues that do not necessarily cover epilepsy’s particularly special nature.
	There is a whole debate to be had about children with epilepsy, and not just in relation to their school education. There is a long history of children with epilepsy not achieving their full educational potential, yet with the right support there can be huge improvements. Epilepsy can affect the child’s education either because of the underlying cause or because they might have to miss lessons or interrupt them to take medication.

Valerie Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and I congratulate Epilepsy Action on producing the report. This is a wonderful opportunity to remind the Minister of my ten-minute rule Bill, in which I ask for two simple things. First, immediate referrals from GPs to specialists are needed. That is where the costs arise—both monetary costs and the cost in lives. If people can be referred directly to a specialist, they need not go through an interim stage to someone who is not a specialist. This covers a wide range of conditions, although it manifests itself as epilepsy—other related conditions might not manifest themselves at all—so anyone might have absences, and they need to know why. Secondly, we need an action plan for children in schools that is similar to that under the Autism Act 2009.

Kate Hoey: I thank my hon. Friend, and I referred to her ten-minute rule Bill. As the Minister has slightly longer than he thought for the winding-up speech, it would be helpful if he referred to progress on my hon. Friend’s Bill. I appreciate that he is a Health Minister, but I want to raise some issues that relate to employment, welfare and benefit rights. If he cannot answer my questions, I hope that he will ensure that the responsible Minister does so.
	There is no doubt that most people with epilepsy want to work, but many of them require additional support. Government schemes, such as Access to Work, can be beneficial to people with epilepsy by getting them off benefits and into work, which should always be a top priority.
	I was surprised to learn from a recent parliamentary written answer that the Access to Work scheme in England and Wales between May 2010 and 30 June 2012 helped just 1,360 individuals with epilepsy. In my constituency no one with epilepsy was helped by the Access to Work scheme. There seems to be a lack of awareness of the scheme and inadequate information being given to people. I hope the Minister will continue to address the problem. Many constituents claiming sickness benefits want to work, but have ended up on benefits because they did not have the proper support when they were in employment. The Access to Work scheme could have prevented them from leaving employment. It is in the Government’s interest to take the matter seriously.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady has been very kind in giving way. I know she is trying to get as much time on the subject as she can. There is another important issue: disability living allowance for those who have epileptic fits and may need extra help. Does she think that one of the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions may be able to do more for those with epilepsy to ensure that they get all the benefits that they are entitled to, particularly DLA?

Kate Hoey: That is an area that I am coming to. It is extremely important. I appreciate that the Minister responding to the debate is a Health Minister, but I know he can multi-task on some occasions.
	I was disappointed to learn from another parliamentary written answer that between June 2011 and July 2012 only 20 individuals in receipt of employment and support allowance—incapacity benefit—whose reported primary medical condition was epilepsy received what is called a job outcome as part of the Work programme. There are cases in which individuals with epilepsy are unable to work, but it falls upon the Government to provide unconditional support through welfare, such as employment and support allowance.
	The NICE guidelines on epilepsy make it clear that epilepsy may sometimes result in significant disability, social exclusion and stigma, which many Members have mentioned, and that people with epilepsy would commonly encounter problems in employment. According to the work capability assessment handbook, the Atos working group panel on epilepsy was clear that if a person has epilepsy which occurs less than once a month, that is unlikely to impact significantly on their ability to work. I urge that consideration is given to the effects of the disorder on each individual, rather than making such a blanket ruling.
	From another parliamentary question I discovered that in February 2012, 12,510 people in England with epilepsy as their primary medical condition claimed ESA, which equated to approximately 30 people in my constituency, and during the same period 32,090 people in England with epilepsy claimed either incapacity benefit or severe disability allowance, which equates to 70 people in my constituency. Finally, during the same period, 59,070 people in England with epilepsy claimed disability living allowance, which equates to approximately 100 in my constituency. There is concern that such figures are not always based on knowledge of the person and of epilepsy.
	There are obviously cases where an individual who may drive as part of his job, for example, subsequently has a seizure. Under current Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency regulations that person would be prohibited from driving for 10 years without medication. That sometimes means that he would lose his job and end up on benefit. The whole employment and support allowance system is insufficiently sympathetic in such scenarios and ends up worrying the individual with numerous mandatory schemes, sanctions and loss of benefits. It is one of the flaws in the system that needs to be dealt with to show that people are taken seriously and treated as individuals.

Laura Sandys: I welcome this debate, because the hon. Lady is covering a very wide spectrum of issues. She said at the beginning that a third of people with epilepsy do not have the right treatment, are not on the right medicine or have not seen the right specialist, and that is the Minister’s responsibility. Some of the other problems she mentioned, such as seizures at work and people not being on ESA or DLA, might become less prevalent if, right at the beginning of the process, we make sure that people get the right diagnosis and see the right people at the right time.

Kate Hoey: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The earlier the true diagnosis is made and the person is referred to a specialist, the sooner they are seen as having an illness that can be treated and have the chance of a positive future. I am sure that everybody in the Department of Health feels like this. However, something more needs to be done at the local level among clinical groups and PCTs, and even GPs, to create this sense of understanding. The hon. Lady heard the very moving testimony from Jemma, who spoke at the launch about the difference between having a good doctor who understands and gets someone the right referral immediately and another doctor who perhaps does not understand and does not take the time to do so.
	The hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) asked me to mention that he has a constituent who has very mild epilepsy but has not lost their job because the company they work for, Hambleside Merchandise, a business in Meon Valley, has been understanding about the situation. It is keen for the Government to change the law so that it complies with the European Union change on whether people with mild epilepsy can drive again. It was confirmed in a ministerial answer last year that these changes would happen. I ask the Minister to follow up on that to see what can happen and how quickly.
	Someone in London who cannot drive because of their epilepsy may be eligible for the disabled person’s freedom pass. The Epilepsy Society, backed by other disability organisations, is campaigning for the Government to make changes to the pass in London and to the disabled person’s bus pass offered by the national Department for Transport under the English national concessionary travel scheme. In particular, the organisations call for the pass to include travel during peak hours, which is very important if someone is trying to keep a job. In some cases, a free companion pass may be necessary, as is already possible in Scotland and in Wales. If the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) were still in his place, I would ask him whether that also applies to Northern Ireland. The Epilepsy Society also says that regional variations are confusing. People move around and it would be much better if there were an overall, agreed way of doing it.
	All this comes back to a lack of awareness about information on many of these schemes. There is a lot of help and support around, but people need to be very savvy or to have a very savvy parent, or to have a link into one of the organisations that provide support, to find out all the information. Government cannot do everything, but there may be ways in which they can ensure that local authorities and others with responsibility do a little bit more. For example, people with epilepsy who get continuous anti-convulsive therapy may be eligible for the NHS medical exemption certificate. They have to fill in a form at their GP surgery to get this, and it allows them to get free prescriptions for five years. One would think that anybody in this position would automatically know about that, but it is amazing how many people do not. Perhaps GPs do not always think that they have to tell people about these things. Where it is useful to do so, we can continually raise these issues in a cross-party way within Parliament regarding our own areas.
	I will conclude by thanking all the agencies and campaign groups involved for helping people with epilepsy and their carers, who do so much to help their relatives or friends. I also pay tribute to the Joint Epilepsy Council, which continues to provide information and guidance for those affected by epilepsy. Finally, before the Minister responds, I pay tribute to our own all-party group on epilepsy for the valuable work that it has undertaken over the years.

Norman Lamb: I think I must have broken the record for the time it takes to get from Committee Room 11 to the Chamber. It took under a minute, even though I bumped into our Chief Whip on a staircase and came off worse.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on securing this important debate and on setting out the issues so clearly. I also thank hon. Members for their valuable interventions, which have been helpful. Occasions such as this are valuable because they expose to public attention issues that do not get debated enough in this place. They also force Ministers to think about particular conditions and their consequences. If I do not have ready answers to all of the issues that the hon. Lady has raised, I would be very happy to write to her to ensure that everything gets a proper and full response.
	By way of introduction, I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to Epilepsy Action for its work and the excellent report it has produced. It is great that we have this opportunity to highlight the issues that it has raised. She referred to the low level of engagement at the local level. She pointed out that there is good practice in many areas, but that there are also too many places where not enough is being done. In a sense, the thing that causes frustration is also the prize: the fact that we know that if we do things better we can improve the lives of people so much. That is a great prize to be secured. Along with Epilepsy Action, the Joint Epilepsy Council, which is the overarching group, also does very important work.
	I should also mention that I met representatives of Epilepsy Bereaved before Christmas to discuss sudden, unexpected death resulting from epilepsy, and I found it an incredibly useful session. I learned a lot about the extent to which, through better care, we could significantly reduce the number of people who die in such circumstances. It is, therefore, incumbent on the whole NHS to ensure that we raise the level of care to the standard of the best. If we can do that, we will make a real difference.
	I was concerned to hear the hon. Lady say that mortality in epilepsy is rising. Given that we know that if we do the right things we can significantly reduce mortality, that is a real concern. Epilepsy Bereaved made the case for a national register of deaths, which I strongly supported when I met its representatives. It would be a good innovation, because we need to understand much more why things are happening and where failures have occurred.
	Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological condition and it affects almost 500,000 people in the United Kingdom alone. Each year a typical GP will treat 10 people with epilepsy, diagnose one or two new cases and care for 20 people who have had seizures in the past but who are currently not in treatment.
	The hon. Lady mentioned Jemma, who had spoken at the launch of the report about her experience of good primary care and about the difference that it makes to have a doctor who shows an interest and understands. When one hears stories directly from such individuals, it is so much more powerful.
	I should also mention the hon. Lady’s constituent, Ashleah Skinner, who sounds like a true expert patient. The more that we can spread such understanding and allow people to self-care more effectively, the better.

Bob Stewart: If we know pretty accurately the number of people who are suffering from epilepsy in our country, would it be crass or wrong for the Government to write to each of those individuals to ensure that they know exactly what they can do to improve their circumstances and for what benefits they might be eligible? Perhaps that is happening already. If it is, forgive my intervention.

Norman Lamb: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Whether it is provided by the Government or at a local level by primary care general practices, he is right to highlight the importance of much better guidance on how people can self-care. The role of expert patients can also be powerful. It can be of great value to somebody who is diagnosed with epilepsy to get guidance and support from somebody who already has the condition.
	I am aware of the historical problems in this area and acknowledge that the services have not always been good enough for those living with epilepsy. Indeed, I acknowledge that the services are still not good enough in some parts of the country. There was some uncertainty, and perhaps some scepticism, over whether the coalition Government’s reforms would deliver the improvements that were so desperately sought. That was understandable, given that epilepsy has rarely found itself in the same starting position as other long-term conditions.
	I am pleased to report that the Department of Health has taken a number of steps recently to improve the diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy. It will work with the NHS Commissioning Board, which takes on its full responsibilities from April, to drive further improvements for those living with the condition.

Laura Sandys: As the Minister rightly recognises, epilepsy has been a Cinderella condition. It has been ignored and has not received the profile that the numbers warrant. He is saying that there will be a step change in how the Department looks at the condition. Will he ensure that there is an understanding of what outputs we expect and that there are barometers to measure them, particularly given that the report states that only a third of commissioners currently put in place programmes for people with epilepsy?

Norman Lamb: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Clearly, the role of the Commissioning Board will be central in holding clinical commissioning groups to account. The register that Epilepsy Bereaved is calling for could, combined with action from the Commissioning Board, be powerful in helping us to understand more about the condition and in driving better practice.
	I understand that there are no specific tests for epilepsy and that it can be difficult to diagnose. The hon. Member for Vauxhall talked about the problem of mis-diagnosis. Some people are diagnosed as having epilepsy who do not have it, and some people who have epilepsy are diagnosed as having a different condition. Such mistakes result in poor or substandard care. Increasing the awareness of the condition among health care professionals is a key factor in improving its early diagnosis and treatment. Detailed advice on epilepsy has therefore been made available on the NHS Evidence website. That is supported by the updated clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of the condition that was published last year by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
	The treatment of long-term conditions is one of the NHS areas prioritised by the Secretary of State for Health, and it has featured prominently in the mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board and the NHS outcomes frameworks. The hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned the awful jargon with which we all have to deal. I have my own personal war against jargon in the Department of Health, confronted with it as I am on a daily basis. As a quick aside—given that we have a bit more time than usual—we need to use language that people understand, rather than jargon that too often excludes people.
	The mandate and outcomes framework set out the Government’s objectives for the NHS, and highlight the areas where we expect to see the biggest improvements. The mandate sets an objective for everyone with a long-term condition to be offered a personalised care plan by 2015 that reflects their preferences and agreed decisions. There is a legal requirement for the Commissioning Board to seek to meet the terms of the mandate, and it is potentially powerful to say that everyone with a long-term condition should have a personal care plan that they have been involved in designing and drawing up. Too often, whether for epilepsy or mental health—another area I have great interest in—people simply do not have such a plan and have never been asked for their views on their care and treatment. If we can effect the transition so that everyone with a long-term condition benefits from it, we can make a real difference. Epilepsy Action and other voluntary sector organisations have been requesting such a plan for some time now, and it should be seen as a positive step.
	The NHS Commissioning Board has responded to the mandate and the outcomes framework by incorporating long-term conditions into the structure of the organisation with
	“enhancing the quality of life for people with long-term conditions”
	as one of its five areas of focus. Strong national leadership for epilepsy services has been raised time and again in the House, and I am pleased to announce that, as part of this work, the NHS Commissioning Board is appointing a national clinical director for chronic disability. They will not deal specifically with epilepsy, but having such a director for chronic disability, including epilepsy, is a positive step.
	The NHS Commissioning Board is setting up four strategic clinical networks, which is important. We have seen the benefit of such networks with cancer, and those benefits are now being spread to other areas, including neurological disorders. The networks bring together groups of health professionals to improve services for neurological disorders and other specific conditions. They will receive an investment of £42 million and play an important part in driving up quality and consistency in treating those conditions. If everyone within the service is linked into expert networks, the chances of improving treatment on the ground become greater. Health and well-being boards will play an important role in driving up standards locally, given their role in agreeing local priorities and influencing commissioning decisions.
	This year will see the publication by NICE of new quality standards for children and adults with epilepsy—that has been called for repeatedly in this House. Those quality standards, which are expected to be published in February and March, will help clinicians make informed decisions about referrals, tests and ongoing care, and ensure a more consistent application of NICE guidelines in that area.
	The Department also understands the importance of providing the best possible information to people with epilepsy and promoting better self-care—the point correctly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). GPs have an important role to play in that, and in ensuring that those living with epilepsy have their condition kept under control with correct medication. Ultimately, however, responsibility for self-care
	lies not with health professionals, but with patients. Through NHS Choices, the expert patients programme, and support from health professionals and voluntary sector groups, people with epilepsy can receive the information they need to stay safe and independent, and to manage their condition on a day-to-day basis.
	On the wider Government response, the hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to the role of education and schools. I understand that the Department for Education is working to support children and young people with epilepsy, as some are not reaching their full potential in school and further education. For example, the Department has issued guidance to schools on how best to manage medicines for pupils diagnosed with epilepsy and other conditions. For those pupils who cannot attend school because of their condition, the Department has provided guidance on what alternative provision should be made.
	In addition, the forthcoming children and families Bill will introduce a duty on local authorities and clinical commissioning groups to commission services jointly—a much more integrated approach than we had in the past—to meet the needs of young people with special educational needs and disability, including those with epilepsy. The Bill will introduce a streamlined, single assessment for the young person. It will also inform an education, health and care plan for the individual. The plan will enable families and young people to buy services through direct payments—we are putting the individuals in charge and giving them real power—thus extending their choice and control. That approach is currently being piloted across 20 pathfinder sites. I understand that the lessons learned will inform the development of secondary legislation and codes of practice, and help with implementation.
	For many adults with epilepsy, employment is a major quality-of-life issue—the hon. Lady rightly raised the importance of employment. Studies have shown that people with epilepsy are up to twice as likely as people without the condition to be at risk of unemployment or under-employment relative to their skills and experience. The Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed that, although it does not target employment programmes exclusively at individuals with particular conditions, its programmes, including specialist disability employment programmes, aim to identify and meet the needs of the individual, including those with epilepsy.
	The Department for Work and Pensions also recognises the important role that cash benefits can play in supporting people with a disability or long-term condition to remain independent. Entitlement to disability living allowance, and to its planned replacement, the personal independence payment, is not based on a specific health condition. However, my understanding is that people with epilepsy may be eligible for support, depending on the severity of their condition. The hon. Lady mentioned the Atos-conducted work capability assessments and made the legitimate point that they should concentrate on the individual. We can have guidelines to help to steer assessors, but the individual’s needs should be properly and fully assessed. That is outside my departmental responsibilities, so I will refer her remarks to the right place.
	The Department for Work and Pensions has advised that, throughout the development of the new personal independence payments policy, it has engaged and consulted with a wide range of disability organisations. That includes
	a discussion with Epilepsy Action on the assessment criteria for the new policy. For those who face barriers to work because of their condition, financial support may also be available under the employment and support allowance—that, too, is subject to eligibility.
	I should refer to some of the hon. Lady’s specific questions—I will ensure I give her a full reply later. She mentioned bus passes. I understand that some local authorities in England have implemented their own bus pass concessions and extended the hours of free travel to include peak times, but the majority have not. Ultimately this has to be a matter for local decision making. I recognise that such variations are not ideal, but the local authority has the power to do this, and pressure can be put on the local authority in any particular area to do what others have already done.
	I was slightly confused because the hon. Lady referred to both the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission. The point is that we should focus on the important issue. She argued the case for some sort of inquiry into epilepsy care to see where we can improve its quality. The right approach is probably through the work that NICE is doing. If we can establish what good care looks like, we can encourage all clinical commissioning groups to seek to deliver that quality of care.
	The hon. Lady also talked about outcome indicators, and I will look at that and come back to her. We need to try to understand the jargon, but the important point is that we should, as far as possible, be seeking to focus on the results for individuals. Too often in the past we have focused on processes and not enough on what we seek to achieve through health care. If we can, through the outcomes framework, identify things that we are seeking to achieve for patients—improving their quality of life—and that can then drive the system, that would be a good thing. We will look specifically at that.
	The hon. Lady talked about the constitution and the right of involvement. We have been updating the constitution and putting patients’ rights much more centre stage—focusing on the personal rather than a more paternalistic approach. That is the right approach, and through the combination of what the constitution will say with what the mandate will require of the NHS in providing the personalised care plan—with the involvement of the individual and based on their priorities, not just presented to them—we can make real progress in putting the patient centre stage.
	The hon. Lady talked about the lack of engagement of CCGs. That point has been heard, and it is good that she has had this opportunity to make the point. The Commissioning Board will do what it can to ensure that the quality of care is improved at local level, and it will be the board’s responsibility to engage with CCGs on that.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned children and the fact that they are not achieving their full potential. I think that I have addressed that point already, but I will come back to her if I have missed anything. She and others referred to the absolute importance of a speedy referral from GP to specialist, and the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) also mentioned the action plan for children in schools. She is right to raise both those issues, which were addressed in her ten-minute rule Bill.
	I hope that I have addressed the key issues that were raised in the debate and I apologise if I have missed any. I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall for introducing this debate, which has given me an important opportunity to highlight some key concerns, as well as the fact that much work remains to be done to improve the quality
	of care across the country. The Government are working to support people with epilepsy and to keep those living with the condition as safe and independent as possible.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.